THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 26, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its work.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure to chair this morning’s meeting. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves, please.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue.
On September 24, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following representatives from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission: The Honourable Ethan Baker, U.S. Commissioner, Great Lakes Fishery Commission Chair; and Earl Provost, Commissioner, Canadian Section Chair.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for joining us here today. I understand that both witnesses have opening remarks. Following those remarks, members of the committee will have questions for you.
We will start with the Honourable Ethan Baker. Mr. Baker, you have the floor.
Hon. Ethan Baker, U.S. Commissioner, Great Lakes Fishery Commission Chair, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. First, I have to apologize. I’m wearing the wrong pin today. I’m only wearing my United States flag pin. I intended to wear the one that shares Canada’s flag with the United States and even Ontario as well. So my apologies that the wrong pin starts us off. Let that not mean that I don’t have a great and deep appreciation for our relationship with our friends up north in Canada, so excuse the pin and we’ll start there.
On behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, I want to thank you Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. I think we had some technical issues again. We are going to ask if you wouldn’t mind starting again.
Mr. Baker: Can everybody hear me now? I’m going to start with the jest comment I made. I want to apologize for only wearing a United States flag pin this morning. I intended to wear the one that had the Canadian flag as well as the province of Ontario, but I left the house in a hurry and forgot it, but let this pin that shows the United States not mean anything about my deep commitment to our relationship with Canada and my appreciation for all of you today for having me at your committee virtually, so I start with that.
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 am Ethan Baker, Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I’m one of the presidentially appointed commissioners of the United States. I am joined by Earl Provost, Commissioner and Chair of the Canadian Section.
As you know, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is a binational treaty organization dedicated to ensuring close cooperation between the United States and Canada over our shared fishery. The need for such cooperation was so great, our two nations created this joint commission.
Established 70 years ago by the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States of America, we recommend appropriate measures to ensure our shared fish stocks are available today and for future generations.
We have three main duties: to implement a shared science program; to control the destructive sea lamprey; and to ensure the states, the Province of Ontario and the tribes work together. History has shown that none of those things would happen without a joint commission.
I am proud to report that cross-border collaboration through the commission is the norm. Long gone are the days when decisions were avoided for lack of science. Long gone are the days when each of the states and the province did their own thing without concern for what was being done on the other side of the border. Long gone are the days when sea lampreys posed an existential threat to our lakes. Sea lampreys are now 90% to 95% lower than before our control program.
Not all is perfect with governance, however, as Commissioner Provost will explain. In the United States, for the past 70 years, the State Department has managed the machinery of government elements for the commission. This allows the commission to act as the independent agency that we are, while still interacting closely with the U.S. agency that is concerned most about the relationship with Canada.
Unfortunately, that has not been the structure in Canada. As I testified last year before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the structure in Canada has made it difficult for me to work with my Canadian counterparts. I am pleased, however, that the Prime Minister has agreed to fix this structural problem in Canada, and I hope we can discuss the matter in more detail today.
Let me conclude for now by saying how proud I am to chair this commission. I have had the pleasure of working with incredibly devoted scientists and fishery managers and with dedicated commissioners like Commissioner Provost on both sides of the border who care deeply about the fishery and about the bilateral arrangement.
At this point, I’ll yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Earl Provost.
Earl Provost, Commissioner, Canadian Section Chair, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: Thank you, Chairman Baker. It is a true pleasure to serve on this commission with you.
Good morning. My name is Earl Provost, and I am one of the Canadian-appointed commissioners. I am also chair of the commission’s Canadian section.
I share Chair Baker’s sentiments about both the value of the bilateral relationship of the commission and the contributions this commission has made over the decades in sustaining the fishery, which is now valued at more than $8.8 billion annually.
Not all has been perfect. Despite the long-standing and vital work of the commission, we have faced serious structural issues with the Government of Canada, most notably the fiduciary responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, over our organization. The problem came to a head in November 2021, when, for the first time in the commission’s history, we were unable to meet and establish our suite of programs.
The problem is that DFO serves both as the body responsible for the commission’s machinery of government function and as the selected sea lamprey control agent for the commission. The department has, in the past, ignored commissioner decisions and retained millions of dollars allocated to the commission directly from Parliament.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was very pleased to receive a letter on September 10 from the Honourable Mélanie Joly to inform us of the Prime Minister’s decision to move our portfolio from DFO to Global Affairs Canada, or GAC. This action confirms what we all know, which is that the conflict needs to be fixed and that this is the best way to do it.
I can speak for the whole commission when I say that we enthusiastically welcome this news and we are thankful to the Prime Minister for making this important decision. His will be the first government in over 40 years to truly address this problem.
Our main goal is to see Canada adhere to the convention they signed, one that ensures the independence of the commission, free from the inappropriate bureaucratic interference that nearly destroyed our ability to function. As Chairman Baker noted, the U.S. model has worked well for many decades. The Prime Minister’s announcement will put Canada on that track as well.
The manner by which this governance change happens will be critical. As such, we’re asking the government to appoint a Privy Council coordinator to work closely with representatives of DFO, GAC and the commission to oversee the transition from DFO to GAC. We believe the full participation of the commission as an independent entity is what we are entitled to and is what will help the government avoid falling into the traps that got us here in the first place.
Thank you for conducting this important study.
The Chair: Thank you to both of you for your opening remarks. Our first questions will come from the deputy chair of our committee, Senator Busson.
Senator Busson: Thank you to both commissioners for being here. It is indeed satisfying to hear that both of you are happy about the decision to make the transition from DFO to Global Affairs.
Perhaps the question is for Commissioner Provost. You talked about the transition, and the fact you are hoping for a Privy Council coordinator. Have you been consulted in any depth about how this transition might work and what your priorities are for making this an effective and quick transition? Are you fully involved in this transition as it unfolds and evolves?
Mr. Provost: Well, yes. First of all, we have really talented people working for the commission. During my day job, I’m Ontario’s Agent-General representing the Government of Ontario in the Midwest United States. I’m involved at that level, but I’m also involved as a commissioner and the head of the Canadian section, so the letter from the Prime Minister announcing the decision is great news.
Now, the discussion is how we move forward. It really is at the discussion level, and moving forward, we certainly want to be active in how the transition occurs. I think we are in the preliminary stages of the discussion of how we move forward on this.
Senator Busson: Could I ask if there has been a timeline suggested or imposed, or do you have a timeline in place that you hope might be a guiding factor for this transition?
Mr. Provost: It should be done as soon as possible but also as cleanly as possible, with an easy transition and with minimal disruption. There is no timeline yet except that it would be nice to get it done as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both very much. It is nice to see both of you, not in person today, but it is nice to see you both again.
Thank you so much for your presentations, which were very helpful to us all. I think all of us around the table were very pleased, and we heard rumours before we saw the official letter that the Great Lakes would be going to Global Affairs Canada rather than the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It just makes sense. It’s an international body of water. You can’t talk about pollution on the Canadian side and not talk about it on the American side, or lamprey eels on the American side and not on the Canadian side. Thank you both very much for the work that you did behind the scenes.
You both talked a lot about independence and the importance of the Great Lakes fishery to be independent. Mr. Baker, you said you would talk about it a little bit later and expand on it. Mr. Provost, you have spoken in the past about the importance of the independence of the commission. I wonder if you could both delve into that a bit deeper.
Mr. Baker: Senator Cordy, good to see you again. Last time I saw you, we were running around the White House in Washington, D.C. It’s a bit different today, but it’s very good to see you, indeed.
Independence is so key to these commissions especially, as you all know, we are working with two different nations here. We don’t want to put our thumb on the scale of either nation, and that’s why the commission itself needs to stay independent.
It is really important, as you talk about the borders of pollution and the borders of lampreys and everything that affects our Great Lakes, there is no iron dam in the middle of the Great Lakes along our nation’s border. Because of that, we’re deeply dependent on working with each other, and I truly believe the only way we can do that successfully in this nature is to maintain the independence of the commission that we have had for 70 years.
Part of the reason for that — and this has really hit home over the last couple of years for me, especially on this commission as it relates to DFO — there was a clear conflict of interest I believe, in how the machinery of government had operated up until this proposed change, which I’m thankful for. With the DFO as a contract agent for sea lamprey control and also playing the role in the machinery of government to collect the money that’s been authorized by your government, it just made it a little bit questionable as to whether there was true independence for the work that the commission is trying to do.
I will talk about independence until my face is blue. It is really important that we know that our Canadian counterpart commissioners and the United States commissioners, when we come together and work on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a whole, as an independent entity that represents both nations and all five lakes and everything in between, that’s when we will be the most successful. I’m happy to talk a lot about independence.
Mr. Provost was asked about the timing. We’re hoping this change can be accomplished by the end of this calendar year. I know that potentially sounds like an aggressive timeline, but he said as soon as possible. I’m hopeful that it is complete as we finish 2024 and we can go into 2025 on a clean path moving forward.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Provost, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Provost: Yes. In my day job as Ontario’s representative, I talk to the directors of natural resources in border states, and I talk to the directors of agriculture in the border states. They are very well briefed and well aware of the activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. They are thrilled that this decision has been made because there is a lot of work to be done.
The commission has done great work in the past and will continue to do great work. There have been issues that they weren’t happy with. They are well aware of the activities of what the Great Lakes Fishery Commission does, the activities of what the Canadian government and Ontario do in collaboration with them.
They want to see the commission function smoothly, efficiently and independently. This decision will help us with our cross-border relations and continue the great cross-border collaboration and partnerships with the Great Lakes region states, the Government of Ontario and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both. I was going to ask why this treaty is very important to Canada and to the U.S., but being a Canadian parliamentarian from the Canadian perspective, I think you both answered that in the question that I just asked.
Do you think there will be necessary changes to the machinery of government when this change takes place? How smooth of a transition should it be?
Mr. Baker: It can be very smooth. I can’t speak to the inner workings of the Canadian government, obviously, in my role as a United States citizen, but I’m confident with the importance of including the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the full-time staff to help that transition. The process can be very smooth so we can have the good governance that we all desperately yearn for and need.
I don’t expect major challenges other than ensuring everyone is up to speed. Our team of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission based in Michigan is eager to help and, of course, our Canadian friends who are there in Ottawa working with all of you.
It is vital, in my opinion, that GAC leans on our commission so that we get off on the right foot from the very beginning and get things going in a positive way. If we do that, I really believe it can be a smooth transition.
Mr. Provost: Yes, I agree with Chairman Baker. The Prime Minister has made the decision, he wants to move the commission to GAC. Now we just need to get there as quickly and as efficiently as possible, with minimal issues. This is exciting. Yes, there have been problems in the past, but there are a lot of reasons to be positive about the future. Moving to GAC is a very positive step.
I don’t know if I am ever going to get a chance to say this, so I just will say it now. It is an honour for me to serve on a prestigious, International Joint Commission, or IJC. Being a commissioner and being head of the Canadian section is a true honour. It helps with my day job too, that is true. But it is an honour. I want to ensure that every senator and everybody on this call understands that. It is a lot of fun.
I have learned more about invasive species control than I ever thought I would, certainly with the lamprey. The people I work with, the professional staff of the commission are smart, dedicated and passionate about what they do. My job is to move their agenda and their ideas forward working with Chair Baker.
Moving to GAC is an important step in the process to work with the Americans and the cross-border collaboration. My hope is that this is a clean, easy, smooth transition. The Prime Minister has made the decision, so now it is up to us to carry out that decision in a quick and time-sensitive manner.
Senator Cordy: I have other questions, but I can wait.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Commissioners Baker and Provost for being here today.
With Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic waters facing different but significant challenges including invasive species and overfishing, do you think there are opportunities for more cross-regional collaboration between your commission and Department of Fisheries and Oceans in terms of lessons learned on a go-forward basis?
Mr. Baker: Absolutely. We have talked a lot about the machinery of government, but I want to stress the wonderful work of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does for actual sea lamprey control and all the other work they do in Canada.
My issue with that organization or with that department is not about the stellar and quality work they do in their day jobs; it has been with the machinery of government.
Cross-collaboration, to get to your question, is key on a number of levels. We have been working hard here in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We have a memorandum of understanding between the IJC and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and we know that cross-collaboration is only going to serve all of us and our two nations even better. I would be interested in exploring further work with DFO and whatever is necessary to ensure that our Great Lakes continue to thrive.
As you mentioned, facing different oceans and all the work and potential problems that can come with that, those are big challenges, and I think that the key players in our organization and DFO and other organizations throughout these two countries are primed and ready to do the work, but cross-collaboration can only benefit all of us.
Of course, I defer to our full-time staff at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as to what we are potentially able to handle and work with on any given day, recognizing our number one and top priority that we have. It would be a fantastic opportunity for all of us to continue to work together and find ways to help.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Mr. Provost: I would like to add that once we get this part of the process out of the way, we can build on the success that the commission has and the staff at the commission had in building relationships but also enhancing those and addressing other issues outside of the Great Lakes region but still very important.
These are smart people. I also want to agree with Mr. Baker about DFO and the professionalism of their staff and the quality of their work. Again, it is their passion and commitment to dealing with invasive species and the quality of the Great Lakes.
We can address and work on other issues once this is out of the way, and start addressing bigger problems and more collaboration. The key to our success as a commission is cross-border collaboration and working with the United States at the national level and at the state level. They pay attention to what we do.
I can speak from experience, having talked to the directors of agriculture and the directors of natural resources in every state, because that’s my day job. They know what the commission does, and they know the value and the importance of the work that the commission does. They are grateful for Ontario’s collaboration, and they are grateful for the Canadian government’s collaboration.
The short answer is, yes, there will be an opportunity to collaborate in the future on other files once we get this done quickly and smoothly, which is why it’s so important to do that.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Commissioner Baker and Commissioner Provost for being with us today. We are aware of the government’s issues, and we share your enthusiasm for change.
You might suggest to us that we could consider whether this committee should write a letter supporting this sooner rather than later. We understand that the phrase “machinery of government” covers a lot of challenges, and I am just wondering if you would make that suggestion to this committee?
Mr. Baker: As Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, I would kindly and humbly ask and suggest that this committee write a letter supporting this change and that this work gets started posthaste, as soon as you are ready. I would add that you please include that it would be beneficial to include the full-time team and staff of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to help guide the process from our perspective in an independent nature so that it can be done efficiently and with good governance, of course, as the end result and the stated goal.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that suggestion, and I thank you for the ideas that you have given us along with that.
Commissioner Provost, what are your thoughts on this?
Mr. Provost: I agree with the chair. I had the privilege of meeting many of you on this issue in the last few years, and, again, the interest is there.
The work that the commission does is essential. While the invasive species are under control and there is a lot to be positive about, we can’t rest on our laurels. We need to get this issue resolved, so the commission and the professional staff, the very smart people, can get back to the work of dealing with invasive species control and working with the Ontario government, different states, First Nations, and tribal leaders in the U.S. to continue to collaborate and maintain the success we’ve had and build on that.
Most people on this committee are aware of the Asian carp, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have done a great job of keeping it out of the Great Lakes. Certainly, senior people in the Ontario government, Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources, are working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, and they are well briefed on it.
That’s the kind of work we have to get back to, and that is why it is important for this transition to happen quickly. I share Chair Baker’s position to get it done by the end of the year. That would be ideal, but there is a lot of work to be done and getting this distraction resolved will help us get there.
Senator Kutcher: I wish I could say I fondly remember all the smelt fishing I used to do out of the Great Lakes, but I don’t because my job was to clean the fish.
You made a number of positive comments about the science-related relationship in the fishery there. Particularly, you have been quite successful at controlling one invasive species, which is different than what we have heard at this committee about what happens in the oceans of Canada.
Could you share with us why you think that the science collaboration in the Great Lakes has been so successful, particularly about the goal setting, funding, the relationship between government scientists and academic scientists, and the use of best available scientific data to guide policy and decision making?
Mr. Baker: Over the next several weeks, you’ll have an opportunity to speak to our scientists and directors directly, and they can really hone in on some of the important work they have done. I would love to hear their answers to how they believe it’s been so successful.
As a commissioner here, my science work itself is limited, but I do know the good work that has been done. Obviously, the cooperation has gone a long way, but we had dedicated people focused on this, and we have always taken the science part of it into account when making decisions. That’s the key. You can have all the scientists in the world doing a bunch of great work, but if the decision makers aren’t taking that data and input from those scientists themselves to make the decisions that are going to affect the Great Lakes or oceans or whatever you are dealing with, it is a lost opportunity.
Key for us has been using the science and research done by our team effectively and giving it the importance and priority that it deserves in order to make our decisions. That’s the key, first of all.
Then again, when you work with that, the cross-collaboration between the two nations — 70 years this commission has been in place — when you look back to where the lakes have been over the years, when sea lamprey had overrun and gotten rid of most of the fishery itself, and you see rivers burning in the United States and lakes essentially declared dead in the 1960s, all of the patience and work of people working together to determine what is in the best interest of the lakes, regardless of individual nations or regardless of, potentially, other projects, there was just such a heavy focus. You even see that today, the billions of dollars that have been spent by both nations to ensure that our Great Lakes are successful.
The key is authorizing the science and the research to happen and then using that science and research to make your important decisions and then continuing to fund at a level that’s worthy of what our Great Lakes or our oceans are. Those three things together, that’s the secret sauce that’s going to make for a successful outcome.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Chair Baker and Commissioner Provost. It has been tremendous testimony so far and very helpful. I am in agreement with everything that has been suggested so far.
In the interest of preventing problems in the future, Commissioner Provost, you mentioned that inaction on decisions at Fisheries and Oceans was a challenge. Could you provide us with examples of that inaction or if there is testimony you could provide to us of examples of inaction in the past? From our standpoint, it’s important for us to appreciate and understand in order to look for ways to prevent it in the future.
Could either of you — starting with Commissioner Provost and going to Chair Baker — give us examples of where we haven’t kept up, where the commission has made decisions and recommended action and it hasn’t been followed through.
Mr. Provost: Yes. Thank you, senator. I am not certain I used the word “inaction,” but the one problem we have had is that the commission was allocated funds and not 100% of those funds went to the commission. We need to make certain that moving forward, the funds that are allocated for the commission go to the commission. The commission needs to be properly resourced, and we need to maximize those resources and those partnerships. That goes to the independence of the commission. The commission needs to be independent of any bureaucratic issues moving forward. There were issues in the past, but I want to focus on the positivity here. I want to talk about the future and what we can do to make certain that we never get back into a bureaucratic rabbit hole or any issues like that.
It has happened in the past where the advice of the commission wasn’t taken by certain Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, officials. These are smart people. I want to say this, with the last comments that Chair Baker made, that these are smart people. They have a passion for dealing with invasive species, protecting the Great Lakes and the fish stocks in the Great Lakes and restocking the fish population of the Great Lakes, so we need to listen to the experts.
I am not an expert. I have the honour of being a commissioner and head of the Canadian Section, and it is a thrill. But I’m not an expert. You are going to talk to the smart people next week. Ethan Baker and I are not the smart people for this, but we do care about what the commission does moving forward and to make certain that we have proper governance and independence and that the funds that are supposed to go to the commission stay with the commission and are not diverted to various other projects. That is what’s important.
The work that the commission does is very important, and they are accountable for those funds. They are responsible for those funds. Having been to the offices in Ann Arbor about ten times now, I can assure you, there is nothing luxurious about that office. They are passionate about the cause, and it is really quite fun to be there and talk to them about what they are working on, the projects, the ideas, the energy and the passion.
There are three things: Independence, listening to the experts and making certain that the funds that are allocated stay with the commission.
Mr. Baker: Thank you. I would love to pick up right where you left off with the funds, Commissioner Provost.
I served on the commission when DFO withheld funds that had been authorized by your Canadian government. The funds were authorized and approved in a budget by the Canadian government, and they were passed through to DFO, but DFO held funds back for their own projects as opposed to sending them directly to the commission, which was expected and required of them. That had real-world consequences for the budget I had to approve and the changes we had to make to our plans for the next year.
We focused on the sea lamprey because we could not let that get behind, as there are dire consequences related to that. However, it did have a chilling effect on our science and research and development work. We were not able to work on some of the science measures that we needed to attend to in order for us to be prepared for the coming years. We lost some momentum when those funds were withheld inappropriately.
The key is to listen to the experts, like Commissioner Provost said, because they are truly gifted, talented and wonderful scientists who care passionately about these issues. Please make sure that for any budgets approved by your government that the funds actually get passed through to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission so they can be implemented, commensurate with how our budget has been prepared and the plans we have made.
Science is a key part of it. The infrastructure projects we have been working on to continue and take us further into this 21st century are moving along at wonderful speeds, but they really risk setbacks if there is any delay or pause in funding.
Commissioner Provost talks about how it is not luxurious in the Ann Arbor office. That’s right, and there is also not a huge pot of savings just sitting there, ready to tap into in case someone tries to withhold any of our money. We are deeply dependent on the budgets that are approved each year for our operational, long-term costs and development projects.
That, to me, is one of the key aspects of what is important about this change in the machinery of government is ensuring that the funds that are approved out of Ottawa always get transferred through and directly into the coffers of our Great Lakes Fishery Commission, so they can then be used according to the budgets that the United States and Canadian commissioners pass.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
What years did this occur in? Is there any documentation that you could point us to — public documentation or otherwise — that would help us have examples of that in real time versus in generalities?
Mr. Baker: Absolutely. I don’t have a full briefing book with those dates and budgets in front of me. I can get you a copy out of our secretariat’s office.
I was appointed to the commission in January 2021, so I believe it was in that 2021 or 2022 budget where those issues happened. I remember having to withhold, I think — and I could be wrong, but my memory is that it was somewhere in the $6 million or $7 million of science and research and development activities that had to be withheld, because we needed to focus on the sea lamprey control first.
I know there are budgetary documents that exist and minutes from our meetings, and I’ll put in a request to our secretariat that you receive a full copy of what I am talking about, so you are not just listening to my generalities.
I also want to state, for the record, to be clear, DFO then did come back and restore some funding most recently as we worked through a memorandum of understanding, but we didn’t go back and seek funding that had been potentially withheld or shortchanged over the years. We just caught up for the current year and moved forward, because it is in all of our best interests to move forward in a positive way.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for appearing before us.
As a Toronto senator, we consistently hear about the outdated infrastructure, the invasive species, sewage and fuel residue which has created a toxic environment in the Great Lakes for fish, wildlife and even humans. Consistently throughout the summer, our beaches are closed.
As commissioners with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, what would you describe as your greatest strength and your biggest challenges?
Mr. Baker: That’s a great question.
Commissioner Provost, do you want to start with this one, or do you want me to go first?
Mr. Provost: Sure.
The people that work at the commission, the passion they have and the knowledge, these are smart people who know the subject matter inside out. And they are likeable, and they have relationships at all levels at the different states that I’m responsible for and the province of Ontario.
Ontario is responsible for the fish in the Great Lakes, so tradition has been that Ontario gets to appoint two commissioners, and I am one of those. My appointment has enabled me to brief Ontario’s Minister of Natural Resources and Toronto-area MPPs, by the way, on the activities of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. We have briefed political staff at Queen’s Park. We’re building on the networking skills of the staff and the knowledge that they have and bringing awareness to the issues of the Great Lakes and the mandate of the commission.
In my case, I have briefed Ontario’s Minister of Northern Development on my work as a commissioner and head of the Canadian Section. I have done that with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness, the Minister of Rural Affairs, the Office of the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources, whom I brief on a regular basis.
In fact, at the end of October, we’re briefing the Premier of Ontario on the activities of the commission. Again, the smart people will be briefing the Premier; I will just be there to open the door for them.
That is our greatest strength, the people who work at the commission and the relationships they have built on both sides of the border to move the agenda forward.
Again, I hate to come back to it, but that’s why the transition to Global Affairs Canada has to be done quickly, efficiently, cleanly, easily and carry out the instructions and the wishes of the Prime Minister, so we can get back to that bigger mandate of education, networking, collaboration and partnerships.
When we make certain that the money that has been allocated goes to the commission, with no games — for lack of a better word — then we can get back to maximizing those resources. The Ontario Government is very anxious to work with the commission on joint projects on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes region. There is still a lot of work to be done, and what worries me is that the Premier knows what I’m doing here, so he is on top of me, making certain that I don’t make mistakes and that we just get things done.
There is another sense of urgency for me in making certain that the machinery of government gets done quickly.
Mr. Baker: Fantastic points by Commissioner Provost. I couldn’t agree more on several of those things. I would love to hear you ask the same questions of our directors, scientists and the people who are working around the clock for the commission when they are before you in the coming weeks. I’m sure they will have much more specific answers and valuable information for you to glean.
One of the things I think is a wonderful part of our commission and the work that gets done is the commissioners and the relationship we have. I spoke in my opening statement about the difficulty I had working with my Canadian counterparts. I should be clear. It is not the Canadian commissioners. We have been in lockstep on these issues throughout this entire process. The United States commissioners and the Canadian commissioners, both old and new — there has been some changeover in recent years — have been steadfast in working together to ensure the goals of the independent Great Lakes Fishery Commission are met for good governance, sea lamprey control, research and development and all the science and infrastructure projects that are needed. I think those relationships are key. That’s a strength that has long predated Commissioner Provost and I, who are relatively new on this commission compared to the 70-year history.
When I joined in 2021, early in that year, I was astonished to see how well the Canadian and United States commissioners worked together and had a strong and good relationship. I was impressed and I think one of my first questions was: “What do we do if we vote differently? Is it contentious?” The staff at the time and the other commissioners looked at me and said: “That’s just not a reality. Do we have differences of opinions at times? Absolutely. But we always work toward consensus and achieve that consensus in a collegial and positive way.” I think that’s a huge strength of the organization.
It cannot be said enough about the value of the dedicated full-time staff and team for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. That includes the people in Ann Arbor and the people at the various stations throughout the Great Lakes, who are out there in miserable weather sometimes, doing the important work to ensure that our Great Lakes and the fishery are in good shape. I commend them.
I had the pleasure of meeting with several of them at different events over the years, except for the COVID time when it was all virtual and very strange. They are so passionate about the work they do. You couldn’t ask for a more dedicated and passionate group of employees and team members to work for any organization. I am the mayor of my hometown city here where I live now. I love my city employees very much, but I’ll tell you the Great Lakes Fishery Commission team members and employees who work out on the lakes are the cream of the crop, and that’s a huge strength of ours.
I think the potential weaknesses, if any, or opportunities to come, are ensuring this machinery of government change happens in a smooth and effective manner so we can continue the great work that has been done to date. Also, 70 years in, we are looking at additional threats from invasive species. We know that infrastructure is outdated in many places throughout the lakes, streams and rivers, so we have to continue to invest and ensure we keep up to date with all of those important things. That takes considerable funding, and we know what’s happened with inflation. Everything costs more today than it did even yesterday. That’s a key opportunity for us to focus on and make sure we’re continuing to do great work.
I was just on a road trip from my home here outside of Detroit out to Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Of course, a good Michigander, we drove through Ontario to get back into the United States because it was more direct. Of course, I love driving through Ontario. Once we got back into upstate New York, the Interstate 90, the New York thruway, pretty much follows along the Mohawk River and the Erie Canal. I imagine all the innovation that went into providing that Erie Canal, which, of course, created so much of the sea lamprey problem from the Atlantic Ocean, where I was at Cape Cod, all the way thro e United States and into our Great Lakes. As I drove along, I kept looking at the channel and canal at different places and thinking it was wonderful we have that for shipping and it played such a key role, but it means the threat will always be here for sea lampreys and invasive species. We have to stay focused on not just the threats we have today, but threats that will come in the future. That’s an opportunity and potentially a weakness because we don’t know what that is. I’m confident with the strength of the team members and commitment we have from both governments that we can conquer those weaknesses in the future.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: I have two questions, and the first comes from a response to Senator Kutcher’s question about the role to be played in the transition, or you had stated, Commissioner Baker that you would hope to play a role in the transition. That would indicate, since the Prime Minister issued the statement on wanting to make the transition, that there hasn’t been any contact, further information or details as to the role the commission would play. Could you elaborate on the status as far as information? What type of role do you think the commission could and should play through the transition?
Mr. Baker: That’s a fantastic question. Again, I hope that’s one you ask some of the more full-time staff members when they are before you in the coming weeks. They will probably give a better answer than Mr. Provost or I will give even though we will take credit for our answers.
I think the advisory aspect of what our Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s full-time team members can provide is key.
As far as what information we have received or questions we’ve been asked before, I’m not 100% sure about exactly what has been said. I think there have been informal conversations, and there is a general understanding it would be good for us to be involved. But we are, of course, looking for something a little more finite and laid out so there can be clear terms.
The risk, of course, is we are so thankful this change has been made and the Prime Minister has taken action. Early on — I think Commissioner Provost was a new commissioner at the time — I think we had a virtual meeting with the Prime Minister’s team at the time. We spoke passionately about the need for this change, and it was a wonderful thing when we were told it’s finally happening. I’m very thankful for that.
But I think our fear is that without having some clear guidance and advice coming directly from the commission itself, we could take a problem that we have now and change it to GAC but then perpetuate a problem in a different way. Before we even get off on that bad foot, it is our strongest advice and hope that the commission will be involved from an advisory standpoint. They are a great resource, first of all, of how things could and should be. Again, because of their independence, Canada and the United States will both be well represented. Although we are based in the United States in Michigan, it is an independent joint commission. The commission is the best group and the team most likely to provide quality independent information and guidance to GAC in the transition. Personally, I’m fine with whatever needs to be set up and formalized, but I’m sure the full-time team members will have better ideas about that when they are before you in the coming weeks.
Mr. Provost: If I could just add to that, yes, I think we would defer to the full-time staff at the commission. I know I would be available to supplement or support whatever recommendations they have and working with Chair Baker on that. That’s how I see my role in that.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much. I remember the frustration of our former colleague, Joe Comartin, and, I know, Commissioner Provost, you said you don’t want to dwell on the past and you want to look forward on this. I’m curious as to the reasons and rationale for that funding. Was DFO undertaking other initiatives? Was the money going to projects that they felt were to the benefit of the commission, saying rather than the money going to the commission, they were undertaking their own projects? Are you comfortable sharing this with the committee? Maybe because you have been on this issue before, you have the back story, but if you could share it with me anyway, I’d appreciate what the rationale was for the frustration that was created over the lack of funding.
Mr. Provost: Chair, if you don’t mind, I would like to answer that. I think it was the lack of clarity and the mandate of the commission. My understanding is that, sometime in the late 70s, a decision was made to put the commission at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or some entity, and there was a lack of clarity in the mandate and about who gets to make the decisions. We need to make sure that, moving forward, the commission makes those decisions on how to spend funds, and we have to make certain the money that is allocated to the commission is used by the commission on its mandate.
The important thing to remember is that the commission is accountable for every penny, so there is no issue about misappropriation of funds. Moving forward, the commission needs have independence. You are right about Joe Comartin. He was frustrated and was a big ally in making sure the commission had its resources. He was a big proponent of moving the commission to GAC.
Moving forward, we have to achieve clarity. Budgets allocated to the commission must be used by the commission to move the agenda forward. The issue in the past was a lack of clarity about who makes the decision about funding. Is it DFO? I don’t fault them. Due to the lack of clarity, over the years they were able to make decisions that snowballed, and that was the situation up until about a year or two ago. Moving forward, we need clarity of mandates, responsibilities, and who gets to spend the money once it is budgeted, so that they can’t claw back any of it or say, “We want to use this for something else.” The commission has a big mandate and big responsibilities, and this is an opportunity to provide the clarity of mandates, moving forward.
I don’t want to dwell on the past too much because there was a lot of good that happened too. But moving forward, we have a great opportunity to settle this once and for all so that the commission can get on with the work of dealing with invasive species and working collaboratively with First Nations, tribal leaders, state governments, the U.S. government, the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario. That’s what’s exciting about all this.
The Chair: Thank you. Second round.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. Your answers have been very clear and definitive. We appreciate that as a committee. I would like to ask you a question, Commissioner Baker. We have spoken about the money going from the budget that’s established by the government to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We have heard that there was money that Fisheries and Oceans wanted to reallocate. Could you provide us with a sense of the money in the United States that goes from the State Department to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission? Could you explain that process to us?
Mr. Baker: Sure. I would be happy to do that. That’s why we are so excited that the Prime Minister has made the mandate to change it to Global Affairs Canada, so it can mimic what has been a successful process in the United States. Here in the United States, the commission makes representations to the Department of State and to Congress for our annual programming budget. We talk about the cost of inaction and underfunding, and then Congress decides the funding levels. Once that decision is made, the money flows directly to the State Department, which provides it directly to the commission. There is no withholding or diversion of the funds that the United States Congress has approved for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. State Department receives it and passes it through. It is highly collaborative and has allowed the commission to avoid the conflicts and funding challenges we have seen in Canada with DFO.
It has allowed us to grow our partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many other agencies and universities. It is clean, and we have never had to experience any kind of competition with our own State Department here in the United States as to what the funds were going to do. Commissioner Provost spoke very well in the previous answer about looking forward and the risk of what was happening. I can’t speak to the minds of the DFO decision makers who withheld funds and what exactly they were using them for, but I think they were using it to supplement their budgetary shortfalls.
Some of it was due to a lack of clarity, although the Great Lakes Fishery Commission was clear in our budget, needs and expectations, as were the Parliament of Canada and the Congress of the United States. Clarity is always an issue because we lack some written guidelines that explain the relationship better, so I’m thankful for the work done by our previous secretariat to achieve those goals. It is about watching the money be allocated by the governments of the United States and Canada, passing through to a receiving entity, which then sends it directly to the commission in Ann Arbor, Michigan, so that the work can be done the way it should be done, and the way our friends in Ottawa and in Washington, D.C. expect it to be done. I believe when you approve a budget that is for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, your expectation is that those funds will be used specifically for those purposes, and will not be used for other purposes, even if it is a complementary use. It is about the specific budget item for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and our State Department has been very clear about that. I’m thankful that the Prime Minister has erred on the side of good governance and has pushed to have GAC take over this responsibility for the Government of Canada.
Senator Cordy: We’ll hope it happens quickly. Thank you. You have both been great witnesses.
Mr. Baker: Senator Cordy has been a longtime supporter of the Great Lakes. She is in Nova Scotia, and it doesn’t even touch a Great Lake. We are grateful for the work you have done. Our team members in Ann Arbor have nothing but the highest of compliments for you. You were held to a high standard, and you certainly lived up to the expectations. Thank you for your service over the years. We really respect you and the service you have given us.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. You are very kind.
The Chair: I would like to say thank you to Senator Cordy. She is the one who brought the idea of doing this particular study. Usually she gets her own way, so we went along with her.
Senator Cordy: My husband would agree with you, chair.
The Chair: When I listen to your testimony, and I hear of allocation of money to a department for a certain purpose, I think of the words of one of your former presidents, Ronald Reagan, when he said, “. . . the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
Mr. Baker: He was obviously very close to Prime Minister Mulroney and had a wonderful relationship with all of you in Canada. That’s very kind.
Senator Busson: I agree that Senator Cordy is a hard act to follow. I have one more question, but I want to comment on the collegiality with which both of you seem to work together and how well the commission itself works and how enthusiastic people are to get this important work done.
I have two quick questions. I’m not sure who can answer them. Perhaps I’ll start with Commissioner Provost. We were talking about funding and withholding. In the big picture, if funding is not withheld, do you feel the Canadian government is paying enough attention to what it takes to hold up our share of this cooperation, the treaty and how we fulfill our responsibilities? Do you feel if all the money goes forward and is placed in the places it ought to be, is the funding sufficient to fulfill our responsibilities?
Mr. Provost: That’s a question that the smart people can answer when you talk to them next week. What’s exciting about moving forward, once we get this issue around governance resolved and done quickly and efficiently, is the potential for increased partnerships working with tribal leaders in the U.S., First Nations here, the Ontario government, local communities and other entities like the Council of the Great Lakes Region, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, and all people and organizations that want to work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It’s about maximizing the resources we have. Sure, you can always use more money and resources, but if we get the money that should be given to us — if we get that we will work with it.
The challenge is the machinery of government. Once that’s resolved, the full-time commission staff can work with Chair Baker and me to work with other partners to take a file or project and maximize the opportunity. That’s what’s exciting about moving forward. That is why I have talked about the future rather than the past this morning. I see a lot of exciting opportunities for the commission to collaborate with various levels of government, various entities and stakeholders. If we get the money that we should receive, that’s a good start.
Moving forward, sure, it’s always great to get more funding. What’s great about the commission and the people who work there is that there is no waste. It is nice to see the efficiency, passion and commitment to the cause. The funds that are allocated are spent very smartly. It is exciting.
If the financial commitments that have been made are kept, they can do a lot of great work with just that. Sure, getting more in the future is always great.
I’m going to leave that to the smart people at the commission who know what their specific projects and big picture projects are down the road after they have met their core commitments, one of which is to wipe out the lamprey.
Senator Busson: I have a quick follow-up on that. I want to commend both of you for the leadership that has made your commission a model of international cooperation and leadership.
I just wanted to explore one comment you made, Commissioner Provost, about a Privy Council coordinator; I wrote it down in my notes. I’m wondering if you could expound a little on that. You mentioned that could be a linchpin or at least a focus on a quick and effective transition. Could you briefly expound on how that coordinator would link into your aspirations for this being a quick transition?
Mr. Provost: It is an idea. It wouldn’t be somebody from DFO or GAC. It would be a neutral operator, for lack of a better term, who would be able to just take this file and make certain that anybody at DFO who might be a little sad at this and hopeful the decision can be reversed and might not be as enthusiastic about moving things forward. So that is an idea that has been thrown around. I think it’s a great idea.
The issue here that Chair Baker and I talked about is the need for speed to get this done. I was a little more diplomatic than Chair Baker was. I said as soon as possible; he said the end of the year. I’m good with that.
In order to move this forward, we need to get the Privy Council Office involved in this. A coordinator being appointed from there would be a great idea.
There is one other point I wanted to make, senator. You talked about the collaboration with me and Chair Baker. He is wonderful, but he also accepts that Canada is better than the United States, which makes things a lot easier to get things done because he has accepted that.
Mr. Baker: Now, now. Wait a minute. We have been very thankful for our relationship with Canada, of course, but I just want to point out that — never mind. I’m going to leave it there.
To touch briefly on your question about the budget specifically, Commissioner Provost is absolutely right that some of our directors can speak about specific financials. For the past several years, our budget requests and allocations have been flat. As we know, every other budget and issue grew out, and the value of a dollar has not been flat over the past several years. So you know the difficulties we face when a dollar four years ago is worth something very different today when, at the same time, the costs of what we are trying to provide have gone up as well. There is definitely a need to look at funding requests and increasing those. We have talked as a commission as a whole about what that looks like. We are always cautious not to rock the boat, especially when dealing with these issues. We are so thankful to get the money that has been approved and is supposed to be allocated to us. We wanted to ensure that would happen, at the very least, before we even looked at an increase. We did have such concerns about not getting what we were allocated to begin with.
There are major infrastructure projects that could potentially be in play that would require additional funding, and those projects would do things that would make the commission and the work done even more efficient and could eventually have cost savings in the future. They could be good returns on investments to have increased capital, but I’m now speaking outside of my commissioner lane here; we’ll let the finance folks handle those specifics. I do hope you ask them that question, and I hope they don’t defer it back to us. It’s a relationship that works both ways, and we depend on data and information.
The Chair: I want to thank both of you for your testimony this morning. It has given us a great opportunity to open our study into the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We certainly hope we can provide some assistance for the goals that you have stated here this morning, including your suggestion to follow up with a letter, sooner rather than later. In the last few moments, I think we should consider suggesting the coordinator in the letter.
With all that in mind, I want to thank you again. We look forward to continuing our work here. I wish you all the best. Thank you for your service on the commission. It is great to see collaboration between both countries working so well. We hope to assist you in continuing that work.
(The committee adjourned.)