Mr. Speaker, I move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Friday, May 10, be concurred in.
I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague and friend, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, and as we move to the end of this session, I want to extend Christmas greetings to my colleagues, to members across the way and all the staff of the chamber, to the Deputy Speaker and his staff, and especially to all of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, whom I have the honour and privilege to represent in this chamber.
When I bring my constituents' voices here, I often speak of some of the major attributes of my riding, the rich agricultural and agri-food capabilities of my home riding. I often speak of the manufacturing sector and the vibrancy there, but today, I want to bring a fish story. Why would I talk about fish from Chatham-Kent—Leamington?
I live one and a half kilometres from the shores of Lake Erie. Lake Erie, one of the five Great Lakes, is actually the shallowest Great Lake. It is the warmest Great Lake and the most productive from a fishing perspective. Indeed, I have several commercial fishing harbours in my riding. Lake Erie is home to walleye, or pickerel, depending on what side of the creek or fence one is speaking from; white and yellow perch, yellow perch being my favourite; whitefish; and numerous other species that bring value and food to our communities, locally, nationally and internationally. This is a fish story. Those are the beautiful fish I just named, but my fish story is about a very ugly fish. Biologically it is a fish, but it looks more like an eel. I am going to be speaking today about the sea lamprey, an eel-like fish parasite.
My story begins on November 30, 1829. Why does it begin then? That was the opening of the first rendition of the Welland Canal. In Ontario, we host one of the seven wonders of the world, the great Niagara Falls, which served as a barrier for entry of this north Atlantic-living fish parasite, the sea lamprey, for eons and decades. However, with the opening of the canal, and the great prosperity that it brought, came challenges.
The canal allowed the sea lamprey to begin its way into the Great Lakes system. There is documentation as early as 1897 of discussions across the border with our American friends about this problem of a fish that is actually an eel about so long, and ugly. It has a sucker-like mouth. If anyone ever has the opportunity to have the Great Lakes Fishery Commission folks stick one to your hand, as they come here at least once a year, take the opportunity. It is an ugly parasite and it began decimating our fishing stocks in the Great Lakes, in particular in Lake Erie. It attaches itself to the fish, making the fish unmarketable.
So began the attempts to control it. Largely, this was done parochially by the eight states that border Ontario. To a smaller degree, Quebec also has shoreline, but not on the most productive lake, Lake Erie.
I should mention one other fact. While it was documented in 1897, the problem began to really escalate with the reopening of the much larger Welland Canal in 1932.
Attempts to address it were largely unsuccessful and the commercial fishing sector was decimated until the treaty of 1954, the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, which resulted in agreement and the creation of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission in 1956. It consists of eight commissioners, four Americans and four Canadians, and it worked very well. It began to address sea lamprey control and was housed under what was at the time external affairs in Canada, which provided the funds from our Treasury. Similarly in the U.S., the State Department transferred the funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In Canada, it was transferred over, post-1979, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In hindsight, that is when an error was made. The machinery of government function was transferred in the administration of this commission from the department of external affairs, as it was known then, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That was a mistake because it created a structural conflict of interest.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the agent that carries on the sea lamprey work here in Canada. Back in 1956, there was an agreement struck between the Americans and Canadians that 69% of the cost of sea lamprey control would be borne by the Americans, as that was their share of the Great Lakes, and 31% by Canada. For decades, that worked. Research and other activities were cost-shared at fifty-fifty. For a long time, that worked and was managed binationally.
However, over time, when the funds flowed from our Treasury through to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, were transferred on to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and then, under contract, were transferred back, the DFO decided that perhaps instead of sending all the funds over, it would just keep what it thought it needed and send on what was not intended to come back by way of contract. That led to the great temptations of withholding funds, of keeping too much and removing the decision-making process from where it ought to be at the binational commission, and it was housed in the ministry itself. This led to friction at the table.
The U.S. felt so strongly about the value of the commission that even though Canada was not paying its share for so long, the U.S. actually funded our share. Over time, the arrears built up to over $77 million. Pressure increased on the government to finally pay Canada's share. In the 2022 budget, the Minister of Finance allotted a budget line item of $44.9 million over five years to fully fund Canada's share, but even that was not enough to solve the issue. Why? Prior to the 2023 negotiations, the DFO informed the commission that it was not going to be forwarding all the funds, as it was so ordered. It retained funds again, causing the U.S. commissioners to walk away from the budget-setting process and walk away from the table. That had not happened before.
Now we have an ugly fish starting to cause an international incident, to the degree that U.S. congressmen have written letters directly to the Prime Minister's Office. This was a matter of discussion when the U.S. President was here in May 2023. This ugly fish was a topic that had to be taken to the highest levels because Canada was not funding its proper amount. The U.S. commissioners had had enough and boycotted. Can anyone imagine this happening?
Let me read an excerpt of the letter from the congressmen dated June 6, 2023:
We are writing to draw your attention to a matter of great concern regarding the implementation of the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries of 1954....
As members of the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force, we were pleased to hear about the attention given to the Great Lakes during President Biden’s recent visit to Ottawa. However, we are concerned by the breakdown in the functioning of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (or Commission), which is responsible for coordinating cross-border fishery management and controlling invasive sea lamprey....
They go on to identify the structural interest. The commission itself secured a legal opinion by Fasken over the studies the fisheries committee did. It has asked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' counter legal opinion. None was provided. The request has been sitting on the Prime Minister's desk since April 2022. It is my understanding that the machinery of government is finally being transferred over.
What is the lesson for us? The lesson here is that governance is important. Accountability is important, as we are seized with in this chamber on a daily basis now.
I will close with another biological metaphor. The problem is that the tail has wagged the dog. It is in the chamber and through committees and governments that we are to enable the legislation and direct our bureaucracies. That is not what has been happening and I most certainly do not want to see this happen again.
