THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 9:03 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its work.
Sara Gajic, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair and to preside over the election of an acting chair. I’m ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator Cordy: I nominate Senator C. Deacon of Nova Scotia — since we have two Senator Deacons today. I figured your heart would begin to palpitate a little bit — to serve as acting chair for today’s meeting.
Ms. Gajic: Thank you. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cordy that the Honourable Senator C. Deacon do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Gajic: I declare the motion carried. I invite the Honourable Senator C. Deacon to take the chair.
Senator C. Deacon (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for agreeing to be very kind to me in this temporary role.
Good morning. I’m Colin Deacon, senator for Nova Scotia. I have the pleasure to chair this particular meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Before I begin, I would like to ask senators and all 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 the microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker 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 clerk so we may work to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I’d like to take a few moments to allow members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Cordy: Welcome to our committee this morning. I am Jane Cordy. I am a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Petten: Good morning. I’m Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McPhedran: Good morning. I am Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba.
Senator M. Deacon: Morning and welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
The Acting Chair: On September 24, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or GLFC. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following individuals: Jane Graham, former executive director, Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association; Dr. Tom Whillans, Professor Emeritus, Trent University; and Dr. David Browne, Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation.
Thank you all for being here today. I understand that you have opening remarks. Following the presentations, members of the committee will have questions for you. We’ll start with Jane Graham.
Jane Graham, Former Executive Director, Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. Good morning. It’s a pleasure to be here today.
I am a Canadian adviser to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the former executive director of the Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association. The Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association is an organization that represents the commercial fishery, both harvesters and fish processors, in the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes in Ontario. My remarks today will be specific to the commercial fishery in Ontario and not the U.S. commercial fishery on the Great Lakes.
Commercial fishing is part of the historical fabric of the Great Lakes Basin. It was one of the first industries founded to support settlers as they colonized the Great Lakes area. Today, there continues to be a viable commercial fishery in Ontario, and many communities around the Great Lakes depend on commercial fishing as part of their livelihoods. For example, Lake Erie is the largest player, representing over 85% of the volume and value of the entire commercial fishery in Ontario in 2023. This is followed by Lake Huron, Lake Superior and Lake Ontario, respectively.
Of the 430 active provincial commercial fishing licences, 207 of these are on Lake Erie, and the remaining are spread between the other three lakes. In addition, of the nine commercial fish processing plants in Ontario, seven are located on Lake Erie, with the majority being in the Chatham-Kent area of southwestern Ontario. The remaining two plants are located on Lake Huron.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission plays a role in the viability of the commercial fishing industry in Ontario by providing fishery management coordination, science and research, sea lamprey control, communications and support for policy and legislative affairs. Of utmost importance is the role that the commission plays in building partnerships and cooperation among the numerous users of the resource. These partnerships have helped create a positive environment to discuss issues among stakeholders, bringing different perspectives to the table.
I sit here with two colleagues who are advisers as well, and we probably wouldn’t have been together had it not been for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission getting these various groups together.
This has helped to foster relationships that might not have been there before, such as their role in the lake committee framework for fisheries management.
Sea lamprey research and control are of critical importance to the commercial fishery as the fishery was almost decimated in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s by these predators.
Without the commission’s role of coordinating research and control efforts between Canada and the U.S. to combat this invasive species, the commercial fishery would likely not exist.
The commission’s role of building partnerships has also helped create new opportunities for the fishery, such as connecting the right people together to build the 100% Great Lakes Fish project, which is aimed at reducing waste from fish processing by creating value-added products from the waste.
The commission has also played an instrumental role in implementing and coordinating a Great Lakes Day on Parliament Hill. This event has brought together several groups to showcase the Great Lakes and this important resource that we have in this country.
In closing, I would like to say that I am proud to be associated with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a Canadian adviser for the last 10 years. This is a first-class organization that is devoted to supporting the Great Lakes and all users of the resource in an open and professional manner.
I will conclude my opening remarks, Mr. Chair, and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Graham, for those comments and your years of voluntary service.
Dr. Tom Whillans, you have the floor.
Tom Whillans, Professor Emeritus, Trent University: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the invitation to engage on the subject of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, an organization that I respect deeply.
My experience with the commission dates back to 1976 as a graduate student with the University of Toronto and continued after my appointment in 1983 as a professor at Trent University, where I have remained. At no time have I been an employee of the GLFC. However, from time to time, I have been involved in research projects that were funded by the commission. My research has focused primarily on the rehabilitation of degraded nearshore fisheries and habitat, and on community-based participation in such rehabilitation. “Community,” in this sense, is both geographic communities and the professional environmental non-governmental organization, or ENGO, community as well. In this regard, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has offered excellent support financially through its expertise and with its collaborative network.
In 2008, I was appointed as a member of the Committee of Advisors to the commission, and since 2014, I have served as chair of the Canadian Committee and co-chair of the overall committee. Members of the Committee of Advisors are not employed by the commission. We are independent appointees. We provide advice to the commissioners in the form of resolutions, typically at the annual general meeting in spring and less formally at the lake committee meetings in winter, and also via the secretariat through our adviser meetings, directed emails, Zoom calls, phone calls and so on.
Our resolutions are public documents archived on the GLFC website, and they are usually accompanied by a press release. Most resolutions are joint Canada-U.S. adviser submissions, but some are taken from the advisers of one country or the other.
That the Committee of Advisors exists and is taken seriously by the commission testifies to the high value the commission places in listening to and understanding the concerns of persons using, affecting or affected by the fishery. The Canadian Committee of Advisors consists of up to 15 representatives of a cross-section of sectors: commercial fishing, sport fishing, Indigenous fishery, wildlife advocates, academia, public environmental interest at large, tourism, conservation authorities, municipalities and power generation.
Since the year 2000, the advisers have made 102 resolutions, including, since 2021, 4 on the machinery of governance of the GLFC. I will not summarize comprehensively the content of resolutions, but if you are interested, they are archived on the GLFC website. They cover a range of topics, such as marine sanctuaries, funding of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, transboundary shipment of invasive animals, the Canada Water Agency, microbeads, cormorant control, lake trout stocking, wind turbine impact, dam removal and so on.
The advisers are generally not party to how the commissioners act on their resolutions. However, in the year after making the resolutions, the Committee of Advisors is informed by the secretariat about the responses to those resolutions.
I’ll leave it at that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Whillans.
I’ll now hand it over to David Browne.
David Browne, Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I’ll be very brief, as Tom covered everything I would have said about the advisers and how it functions. I’m happy to take questions.
I am the Director of Conservation Science at the Canadian Wildlife Federation, and I have been a Canadian adviser to the commission since 2018, representing environmental interests. The Canadian Wildlife Federation is a national not-for-profit focused on wildlife conservation across the country, founded in 1962 with a connection to sustainable use of our resources and their persistence over time for future generations, so it’s a good fit with the GLFC mission and purpose.
I have over 20 years of experience in fish and wildlife conservation and an academic background in fish ecology, environmental pollution and environmental policy. I also grew up on the shores of Lake Erie, which is part of why I’m interested in this. It’s not just academic. I lived and grew up there. I have strong family connections to the Great Lakes, their fisheries and the many changes to the lakes over the past 40 years since I was a kid there in the 1970s and 1980s.
Over the past seven years, I chose to put time and effort into the Canadian advisers to the GLFC because I believe the commission has a world-leading approach to consensus-based fisheries management, bilateral fisheries science priority setting and invasive species control.
I strongly support the shift from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, to Global Affairs and the continued important role of DFO in science and lamprey control. In my view, the commission is first and foremost an international cooperation body that exists to address challenges that no one country can address alone and to avoid conflict over the management and allocation of shared resources.
I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Browne.
We will open it up to questions from senators.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here. Ms. Graham, you spoke about fostering relationships. What is your relationship with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission like?
Ms. Graham: Our relationship with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is they provide a number of things that they do that are very beneficial for us. I touched on a few of them. The lake committee process they have is very important because it brings together the management from the province as well as the states surrounding the Great Lakes. It brings them together to discuss issues they have in common.
This is extremely important for the commercial fishery. Fish and sea lamprey don’t know there’s a line down the middle of those lakes, so that’s why it’s important that we’re managing on a basis that is binational.
Senator Ataullahjan: I’m a Toronto senator, so the one thing I’m very aware of is how toxic the environment has become in the lakes. We consistently hear about it throughout the summer. I know the infrastructure is a bit outdated.
I don’t know if it’s fair for me to be asking you these questions, but to any one of you, do you think enough is being done to deal with the erosion of the habitat and wildlife? Now we’re being told to worry about the exotic species that will be released by people into the lakes. How does one stay ahead of all of that? It’s a big challenge. Just looking at the size of the lakes, I understand the challenge, but is enough being done, and what more can we do?
Mr. Whillans: There’s never enough being done, but a lot of activity is going on. You’re from Toronto, and there, the fishery depended heavily on large wetlands, especially in Ashbridges Bay before it all got filled in. Those were there until the early 1900s, and then they gradually got filled in.
What’s happening now is restoration of those wetlands — not quite in the same place, but right down in the mouth of the Don it is being done, as well as in the lower part of the Don River. That’s all restoration and rehabilitation work that is informed by science, a lot of which comes through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
It’s part of a network. There are a lot of people. The IJC is involved in that, too, in the areas of concern and funding that it has.
We’re understanding better what needs to be done. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is a restoration commission. That’s what it’s there for, not simply to preserve conditions that existed when it was created in 1954. It’s trying to understand what must be done to bring back what was affected by a couple hundred years of degradation. That will not be done instantly. It must be done over a long period of time.
One of the things I mentioned is that I developed a degree program at my university on ecological restoration. We bring students in, and they learn how to do that, not just in fisheries but in terrestrial as well as aquatic matters.
It’s an area of growing interest with a lot of job opportunities. I would venture to say that environmental management is now more about restoration than it is about sustaining existing conditions.
I don’t know if that answers your question or not.
Senator Ataullahjan: Mr. Browne, you said you grew up on the shores of Lake Erie. What are some of the changes that you have seen?
Mr. Browne: I can also take your first question too, but in terms of my personal experience, I grew up before zebra mussels were common in the lakes. There weren’t algae blooms coming into the shore and ruining the swimming, and you could just walk out on the rocks without cutting your feet and be a kid and run around without that concern. The shorelines look different because, as you know, particularly in Lake Erie, there’s a layer of shells of zebra mussels on the beach. It just looks different.
Also, my family went recreational fishing a lot. I have family all along the lake, from Fort Erie to Windsor, basically. That’s where my mother’s side of the family is from.
I also have the lived experience of the fisheries going up and down, which they do over time, with the walleye fishery and the perch fishery moving around. One of my best friends in school was from the family of Minor Fisheries, part owner in that fishery, so I got to see fish processing and the fishing boats bringing in the haul. That’s just part of my lived experience.
The fisheries go up and down. I understood as a kid the role of lamprey, even though I had no connection to it. The lakes have changed a lot, and more species have come in over time, although we seem to have closed the door on the ballast water issue.
Just in terms of keeping ahead, though, Tom was saying the GLFC is a restoration organization by its nature, which is true. Organizations like the GLFC are the way that you try to stay ahead of things and how you can get things done, because it plays an important coordinating role, even with the water quality agencies, habitat restoration issues, the lamprey control and other invasive species control. Because it’s such a shared environment with so many states, the province of Ontario and the federal government, that coordination role is important for getting things done and staying ahead of it.
Canada could do more. The Americans actually do quite a lot and put a lot of funding in. However, Canada has been stepping up more. Of course, they are, in order of magnitude, bigger than us, but I always feel as if they’re putting more into the Great Lakes than the Canadian side is.
We have stepped up recently. This government invested in the Freshwater Action Plan, for example, and there is recommitment to the areas of concern, which are contaminated areas that must be cleaned up. Canada has upped its game lately to match, at least in part, what the Americans have been doing. There’s always more our side could do to keep up with the good work happening on the other side of the border, frankly.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: The answer to my first question probably won’t be in the report. Why is this black? Is the reason that the current state of the Great Lakes is so dire that they made the pin black? That is my first question. I’ll have another one after.
[English]
Mr. Browne: I was asked how it has changed since I was young. I would say there are a lot of ways in which the Great Lakes are in better condition. In the 1950s and 1960s, we had very serious pollution issues that have been cleaned up. I think the pin is by accident.
You could ask one of the people in the back. I don’t think it’s to symbolize their decline. I think we’re all looking forward with optimism for the Great Lakes, not with pessimism.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: You can change the colour later. I was really curious about that. Mr. Browne, you mentioned that you agreed with the shift to Global Affairs Canada. Do you think it could have serious consequences on how the commission manages the Canadian side? Could there be more financing allocated to the commission or other groups to support more projects? I would appreciate it if you could give me more details.
[English]
Mr. Browne: Well, on the money side of it, it’s hard to speculate on whether that shift will result in more funding for the GLFC. I think it will improve the way in which that money flows, whatever the allocation is from the budget for the GLFC.
I’m not sure whether it would result in more. There’s what’s within the terms of the treaty and what’s expected in terms of our match by a formula. We’re meeting that now, and I would expect that to continue.
The additional funds are primarily around targeted special projects. As I was saying, the Americans have several, and we have some. I would hope that Global Affairs would see it’s in their interest to consult and support additional funds into the GLFC.
In terms of its function, I don’t see it changing the day-to-day function of the secretariat and the GLFC itself. I think that will largely run as is. I think what we expect, and I think it will be the case that it will clear up, is it will improve the relationship with the United States by moving it to GAC.
I would say that in recent years, there has been some action — or inaction — by Fisheries and Oceans Canada that I, frankly, found inappropriate and somewhat embarrassing as a Canadian citizen representing Canada on this Committee of Advisors. That experience led me to believe that a separation between DFO and the overall management of this treaty relationship was a good idea. Then, as I learned more about it, I also thought it would help the secretariat function as a bilateral organization with the United States in a more effective way, simply because the mandate of Fisheries and Oceans is primarily marine fisheries and fish habitat and not international relations.
As I said in my statement, this is a body around cooperation across two countries around a shared resource. I think there’s some strategy and tactfulness that would come from Global Affairs that I wasn’t seeing coming from Fisheries and Oceans Canada over the years that I was an adviser, to be frank.
Mr. Whillans: I agree with everything David said. There are some things that we haven’t talked too much about, but I think they’re sort of added benefits.
The primary benefit of switching to Global Affairs is the money will flow in the way that it should and is designated to, to the right parts of the commission’s operations. Certainly, the commission will continue to be involved with the sea lamprey, and DFO, as an excellent partner on sea lamprey control, will be part of that.
But the funding that wasn’t coming to the commission to operate the science program and so on from Canada will be there. So there will be more money as of the correction that was made about a year ago in the budget, more money than there has been since 1980, but I think it’s been quantified since 2000 as around $70 million gone. So there will be more money in that sense for the commission.
Also, with respect to what David was referring to, I’ll just explain a little more. On the U.S. side, there is something called the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. It’s not part of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It is money that is given to U.S. states and federal departments to do restoration work around the Great Lakes. The commission is aware of it, provides science that informs it and so on, but it’s money that is not controlled by the agreement the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is part of. But the commission certainly does work that pays attention to that, and some of our adviser resolutions have been in support of the annual renewal of that fund on the U.S. side. It’s done by Congress, and we want to make sure that continues.
Canada has absolutely nothing comparable. There is nothing you can refer to that is like that pot of money for restoration purposes. I would hope that there might be some pressure put on the right Canadian departments — it wouldn’t be just one — to provide funding to make up something like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative from the Canadian side.
The other thing that I’m looking forward to is with regard to the fact that, as David said, DFO doesn’t deal with the whole range of environmental matters. There are a number of international agreements that pertain to the Great Lakes and that affect fisheries, for example, the Convention on Biological Diversity. That’s something that is tricky because Canada signed on to it. The United States has not signed on to it. So we have the Great Lakes sitting there right in the middle, and we’re trying to work the politics on both sides and understand how they are affecting the way in which the fishery is managed. I am hoping that Global Affairs Canada will be able to help us interpret that relationship and how to deal with those sorts of differing opinions on both sides on issues that are really important in terms of fisheries.
Climate change is another area where the U.S. and Canada have different approaches, and Global Affairs could help us interpret those differences and instruct us or at least guide us in terms of how we might deal with those issues on Great Lakes fisheries. I’m looking forward to that aspect of things in addition to the fiduciary stuff.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Dr. Whillans, for reminding us of the US$70 million that was reappropriated to general revenues at DFO rather than going to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. And thank you, Dr. Browne, for your forthrightness in terms of your concerns about past actions and the value of this change.
Senator McPhedran: Let me begin by thanking each of you for your contributions and the independence of your contributions. It’s a crucial aspect where we have government departments taking on responsibility for implementation.
I really appreciated the reference to the range of agreements that have to be factored in. My question is very specific to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It’s a question for each of you to respond to if you wish. It is about the effectiveness and whether you have seen positive changes. I also note that the partner under this agreement is DFO, and I’m wondering about this shift to Global Affairs and what kind of impact there may be as a result of DFO no longer being the central government department.
If you could just enlighten us on any other agreement, in addition to this one, that you see as part of the essential package for the work that you’re undertaking.
Mr. Browne: I would say DFO is a partner in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, but Environment and Climate Change Canada is the lead, so there are components of that agreement that would rely on DFO, but the largest components of what is done there rely on Environment Canada staff, particularly the Burlington facility on Lake Ontario.
I read the reports of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. I don’t have an independent view of how effective it has been, but I would say that’s one of the most important. Canada has recently been negotiating the Columbia Basin Treaty. We have a few of these cross-border water management agreements and treaties with the Americans. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, in my mind — I guess I’m biased because I grew up there — is the most important one. It has obviously had its challenges, mostly on the sort of local politics side of what needs to be done in order to make the changes. There have been some recent concerns around water levels, for example, in the Great Lakes that have been quite controversial. But my experience is that body is as professional and effective as the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and we’re lucky as Canadians to have two strong bodies that are managing these Great Lakes with strong officials leading them.
I can’t comment on the governance of that, but I would go back to the original question. My experience and my view is that Global Affairs would be a really good home for this in terms of the overall fiduciary agreement and the advice at a political level on how to navigate the waters of fisheries management in the Great Lakes that would come from GAC. I wouldn’t be able to comment on the overall governance and set-up for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. I’m not familiar with exactly how that functions.
Senator McPhedran: If I understand your point, it is that you don’t anticipate any additional difficulty as a result of the shift to Global Affairs and that it should continue. Am I correct?
Mr. Browne: Yes. I wouldn’t anticipate anything.
Mr. Whillans: I don’t anticipate any difficulty that way. With the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement — or the latest version of it — there are a number of different annexes attached to it. There is an annex on fish and wildlife. The water quality agreement, although it didn’t traditionally focus on that, it is now instructed to.
Part of that annex — there is a working group for each of them — and the annex on fish and wildlife involves people from the GLFC taking part in the discussions, people from DFO, people from the Ministry of Natural Resources — they dropped the “Forestry,” so just the Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario — and comparable agencies on the U.S. side.
So I think it’s collaborative, and the International Joint Commission, or IJC, is collaborative. The regional office is very collaborative on Lake Ontario. I do not see that as changing.
I took part in a number of IJC water quality agreement sorts of initiatives focused on restoration, so you are familiar with the areas of concern and the restoration strategies that have been developed for each of those areas of concern. I was involved with the Hamilton one as an example. DFO is a major driver in that, but so were the other departments that were involved. It was very collaborative.
Regarding those areas of concern, one of the interesting things is they have picked up our model, the fishery commission model of collaboration. For example, in Hamilton, there is a technical committee which is made up of agency people, and then there is an advisory committee — the Bay Area Restoration Council — made up of citizens, ENGOs and representatives of that sort of thing. They have this type of adviser relationship, and then the people who have the money and the authority and so on receive advice and try to act on those things.
So I think there is a philosophy with those specific areas of concern and projects that is shared with the fishery commission’s approach to doing things.
One thing I wanted to correct, though, is this: I heard somebody — I can’t remember who it was — talking about the fishery commission “managing.” It does not manage. It does not manage the fishery. It basically helps the provincial and state operations in particular, but also the national operations, allocate the resources and do their work. Tt provides advice and science and so on, but it doesn’t manage.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Whillans: The IJC does have some management responsibility for water levels and the water quality agreement.
Senator McPhedran: Ms. Graham, did you want to respond?
Ms. Graham: I really have nothing to add to what my two colleagues at the table had to say, except that all these agreements are very important. It’s important that they get implemented to their fullest extent. And I’m very confident, with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission being involved in these, that they are involved in the things they need to be doing to get these things accomplished. That’s where I’m coming from.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for adding that. You emphasized the importance of cooperation and partnerships to achieving anything good in this world. Thank you very much, Ms. Graham, Dr. Browne and Dr. Whillans.
Senator Petten: My question is for you, Ms. Graham. You spoke about the importance of the commercial fishery of the Great Lakes and how many people are involved with your licence holders as well as the processing of the product, and of course, we have to be concerned about Canadian waters as well as part of the issues.
Do you think that with respect to being part of foreign affairs — particularly where you have been totally involved with the DFO management and policies and so on — you’ll lose or maybe gain something through this arrangement of being with Global Affairs?
Ms. Graham: The best part of what is going to happen, Mr. Chair, through the move to Global Affairs is that there will be clarity. We’re going to understand what is actually happening.
In Ontario, actually, our fisheries are really managed at the provincial level. The federal government has passed down its authority for fisheries management through the Fisheries Act to the province. I do not see that changing. Hopefully, that continues to be the way it is.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has excellent working relationships with the managers of fisheries on both the Canadian and the U.S. sides of the Great Lakes and brings them together. I fully would encourage that to continue under the new arrangement.
Senator Petten: Is that indicated under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, that it will still continue under provincial? Do you have those assurances?
Ms. Graham: I would imagine. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I don’t know how that would change. That’s an authority that has been delegated to the provinces and is in the statute in provincial legislation.
Senator Petten: Okay. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Graham.
Senator Cordy: Thank you all so much for being here today. You bring wonderful passion and knowledge to your jobs and certainly seem to enjoy them. You have all said that we’re moving in the right direction by having it moved to Global Affairs Canada.
I have been a member of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. Every time we saw the minister, we would talk about the importance of it.
In reference to what the chair said about the $70-million reappropriation, I think that was actually a tipping point. It was a negative that they were going to reappropriate the funding but good that it actually caused action to take place.
When we make this change, do you think it will be fairly seamless or will there be bumps along the way? Have you thought about how it will work?
Ms. Graham: Mr. Chair, I think the proof will be in the pudding on this one. The mechanics all need to be worked out, with some assurances that it’s a fulsome move and not just a piecemeal move of part of, say, the governance and then the money is left somewhere else. It needs to be a full and complete move from DFO over to GAC.
Hopefully, it takes place in a relatively quick manner. I can only make a recommendation here that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission be at the table when these decisions are being made about what this will look like in the future.
Senator Cordy: Dr. Browne or Dr. Whillans, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Browne: I think there is a real advantage to ensuring that the funds that Parliament allocates to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission flow to the commission. That creates a big advantage. It wasn’t all doing that. I think this assures it. This brings in Global Affairs expertise and views in trade and bilateral relationships, but it also separates that flow of money from the implementing department, which I think is really healthy for this. It’s not really about the money. It’s about the relationship. The money needs to flow through the secretariat because we need to make decisions jointly with the Americans on where we spend the money. The Americans don’t have a voice in where DFO spends their money. They have no voice. They can’t complain to our deputy minister; he will not make time for them.
The place for that to go is to the secretariat. That’s where I see the advantage. The question was, “What would the benefit be?” The benefit would be better joint setting of priorities for how the science dollars and the money for the management of lampreys are spent. That’s a huge advantage.
Mr. Whillans: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this chance. You asked about bumps. There will be bumps for sure. There is a learning curve that Global Affairs will need to go through. They haven’t had this portfolio before.
But there is one bump I’m a bit concerned about. I understand that there is a movement to create an alternate commissioner on the Canadian side and that commissioner might come from DFO. I see that as an invitation to just mess it up again.
I don’t understand fully what that job description would be, but if part of the job is to administer or deal with any disagreement that might occur, and that commissioner is involved, well, there is a conflict of interest there. So I see that as a potential bump, but I don’t know enough about what the job is.
I have paid attention to the fact that the U.S. has an alternate commissioner. That commissioner is academic and has long experience with the commission. It’s not the same role, I don’t think. There is no conflict of interest there for that commissioner, so I suggest that you not be tempted to say that the U.S. has one so we can have one too. It’s not the same if you make that alternate commissioner someone from DFO. Then we would have three federal representatives and two provincial representatives. A number of things become problematic if you do that. I mention that as a concern that I have at the moment.
Senator Cordy: That is a good flag to put out for everybody to pay attention to. Thank you all for your comments.
Dr. Browne, you have considerable experience with fisheries in other parts of Canada and internationally, not just the Great Lakes. I wonder if you could tell us how the Great Lakes fishery compares to some of the other fisheries you have seen in Canada and internationally, especially in terms of managing restoring the fisheries, those kinds of things, because that’s certainly your background.
Mr. Browne: I worked a bit years ago in Asia, including Southeast Asia, on fisheries issues. Through my organization, we work with the Pacific Salmon Commission, for example, and interact with Atlantic Maritimes fisheries management as well around a number of species out there, both fixed-gear fisheries like crab and lobster, but also mobile-gear fisheries, groundfish, that kind of thing.
As a fish biologist, the advantage of the Great Lakes is they are actually contained and you can more accurately measure the number of fish. There is great advantage there. It allows for really sophisticated management of the fishery.
But my overall comment on that is I have essentially volunteered my time. I have done that because my experience is that this is an incredibly well-managed fishery with a globally impressive degree of cooperation. To be frank, countries fight about fish. Canada has as well, and the Great Lakes are a very valuable resource. Part of my interest in serving as an adviser is to understand how this relationship has been maintained and how it has been so congenial for so many years.
I would just reflect on the adviser role because there are questions sometimes, such as, “What is the adviser role?” I find it quite interesting because when we do get involved, particularly in the Maritimes fisheries, there can be quite a distance between the users sometimes, the harvesters themselves, the commissions and the managers of those fisheries.
What I find in the Great Lakes is that at our annual meeting, you have advisers who are sport fishers, commercial fishers and academics, and the managers of the fisheries are also there. The secretariat is not the manager; they are just the convenor. It creates a really interesting fisheries management environment, where there are personal connections that are made and personal understanding and respect among these groups, both the managed users and the managers. I find that really fascinating and different. Often, globally in fisheries management, there is not that kind of connection, but the GLFC is very effective in creating that environment.
Senator Cordy: How did they create that? It sounds utopian. It sounds really great. We have been on the Fisheries Committee for —
Mr. Browne: I walked into it as an adviser in 2018. I think they created it over many years by reflecting on how to maintain a consensus-based management of fisheries across so many jurisdictions in this shared water body.
You heard from Dr. Gaden. He is the historian of how all these things came to be, and he would probably have a story on how the culture of this and the way of doing work came to be. I think it was people reflecting on how to do this well and putting in place some institutions to make it go well between the two countries. Tom, do you want to comment on that?
Senator Cordy: Would either of you like to comment on that? What makes it all work?
Ms. Graham: If I might, I think history has told us that if we don’t work together, there will be chaos that we can’t manage. I think that’s the benefit the Great Lakes Fishery Commission brings: They do coordinate, they do manage and they bring the parties together. That’s because of the chaos that existed before they were here.
Mr. Whillans: I know a bit about how it evolved because I’ve been slowly — too slowly — writing a book about the history of fisheries research in Ontario. I’ve interviewed people on the U.S. side and on the Canadian side about the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I have been through the files on the commission in the archives of Canada. I haven’t done the work that Marc Gaden has, but I have done some work on this.
One of the things that really stood out for me is the Council of Lake Committees. They meet in the winter every year. There is a day devoted to each of those committees, which have met many times during the year, before they all come together at that meeting in the winter. Those are mixtures of all interests that are able to speak at those lake committee meetings and then come to the open meeting in the wintertime to hear about the other lake committees and strategize.
One of the things I noticed was that in the 1950s and 1960s — especially in the 1960s — there were fishery managers and researchers who were getting together and forming lake committees, essentially. The one I paid attention to was Lake Ontario. They would meet and go over to Cape Vincent or come over to Glenora once a year, and they would talk about the nature of their common problems and how to solve them and so on. My impression is that was formalized by the fishery commission, watching how people were trying to interact and helping it and, after that point, generalizing it. Some of those groups were better at it than others, and they took that as a model. There is sort of a groundswell start to some of this, anyway.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Thanks for starting that line of questioning, Senator Cordy.
I want to dig in a little bit more about the proposal or the idea that DFO might have a designated commissioner. They are a service provider that is really important, it sounds like, in the functioning of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Do you see any reason why they might need this position from a communications standpoint? Because it sounds like communications is something that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission excels at, that it’s happening naturally in the culture already. One would think that the only purpose would potentially be because they feel they are not being heard or something. I can’t understand why there would be a need for this.
Can you just sort of dig into the principles that might help guide why a commissioner might be appointed or not, if you see what I’m trying to get at? I think the independence of commissioners is really important, and the independence of the body that is convening all of these partnerships successfully — very successfully, it sounds like — is really important.
Maybe just lift it up a level and help us understand what principles should be followed into the future in appointing commissioners. Is anyone willing to take that on?
Mr. Whillans: Because the Great Lakes fishery, from Ontario’s perspective and from Canada’s perspective, is primarily Ontario’s jurisdiction, it’s important to have a balance and ensure that Ontario is not in a situation where it’s potentially outvoted on the commission. That balance, I think, is an important principle there. I like the principle, which has been followed on both sides. I have a bias of having an academic as one of the commissioners because they are not affiliated with an organization that has a political stance, and they have the ability to stand back and insert an independent perspective into whatever discussions occur.
Those two things are important, but really important is the principle that there be no conflict of interest. As you know, there is a conflict of interest document — I can’t remember the name of it — that was put forth about a year ago. The commission adheres to it in trying to make sure there are no conflicts of interest when deliberating on matters and so on.
I would suggest that you take a look at that document. Again, I can’t remember the name of it, but use it and maybe build on it as a way of articulating what is needed to be followed for the appointment of new commissioners.
The Acting Chair: Are there any other suggestions or thoughts? No? Thank you very much.
It intrigues me that the reappropriation of funds from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to DFO itself, when it was in a governance role, occurred under the governments of four different prime ministers. There is a cultural instinct to follow DFO’s priorities, as I think has been demonstrated in the past. I think that independence point that you’re making is really crucial, and I was glad to dig into it a bit.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here and for the work that you have been doing, much of it that may not be recognized or seen.
I’m sitting here as a passionate Lake Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior gal. I’m missing one, I know that, but the whole area. I study it, whether it’s hiking or whether I’m on boats. I’m finding myself checking the bottoms of boats more than I ever have to see if there’s anything on them. These pieces, as well as what my colleague talked about with erosion and different things we’ve seen over time, are definitely something that I care about.
Senator Cordy talked about — I also do this U.S.-Canada parliamentary partner piece, and we have had passionate conversations in the last 18 months with MPs and senators and our American counterparts on issues that I didn’t even understand were issues of significance, learning about the funding buckets and efficiencies. I’m certainly wishing well as this leadership or ministerial crossover moves.
I’m also thinking about the organizations that you represent and the academic world and looking at the pillars that you have in here. I’m wondering about, with all these hats being worn and interests, how the Great Lakes Fishery Commission balances the ecological health of the Great Lakes with the economic interests associated with them.
When I look at that question, you have three pillars you talked about in the vision. They basically talk about ecosystems and health; the sea lamprey; and alliances and partnerships. I’m trying to merge that with how this is helping balance this. Maybe there’s one area of those three pillars that you’re feeling really good about and one where we are not there and are really stuck.
I wonder if you can comment on one aspect of the gibber that I shared with you this morning. They’re connected, but it’s a balancing act in an organization where hopefully you folks have been well consulted and it’s reciprocal. How are we creating this balance and where are we perhaps stuck? Mr. Browne, why don’t you start?
Mr. Browne: There are a few things in your question, but on the balance between environmental quality, restoration, sustainable fisheries and use, that balance is actually at the heart of this. There isn’t a straight-line, obvious answer. You would think these two things would be perfectly in balance and everything you would want to do for the environment or for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement or any other initiative would be absolutely in lockstep with fisheries production, but it’s not really the case. There are sometimes hard decisions to make about nutrient loading, productivity close to the shore or offshore and how exactly to manage invasive species and what trade-offs that might mean for other users in the lakes.
You’re getting at part of what the GLFC secretariat as an independent body tries to foster: an environment for finding that balance by being an independent agency that can bring those different views together. The GLFC can represent on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and we can also bring people together at our annual meeting to discuss these issues and try to find what that balance is between beach water quality — an issue for many of the cities — and fisheries production and management. Often, those go hand in hand, and sometimes there are questions about which direction that should go and what’s best for the fishery and what’s best for the water quality and the environment.
So, yes, the balance is not self-evident. It takes work, and the GLFC is one of those bodies through which that work happens, frankly.
Ms. Graham: That’s a very good question. The balance part is always difficult when we’re talking about a sector that is focused on making money and how we balance that out.
From this perspective, the commercial fishery is very passionate about ensuring that the ecology and the ecosystem there are managed. Without those and if it is not balanced properly, there is no commercial fishery. We have some families where it’s not uncommon to see a sixth-generation person on the water; their family has been fishing for six generations on the Great Lakes in Ontario. We recognize the importance that this whole balance plays. Sometimes economics do give way to the fact that we must know there’s a sustainable commercial fishery for the future and for everybody to enjoy.
Mr. Whillans: There’s no formula. There are differences between Canada and the U.S. when we ask these questions. For example, on the U.S. side, the charter boat fishery is incredibly important.
Earlier, in the 1970s, Canada was very much in favour of tourism focused on native species, and the U.S. was much more focused on coho and Chinook salmon, species introduced from the West Coast, so we had disagreements that had to be worked out in meetings. The fishery commission helped a lot in trying to understand those disagreements. Those are economic but also cultural — understanding that there’s a cultural link there that is broader than just the people who are exploiting the fishery — but where they’re living and the communities they’re part of are a really important part of things.
I’m on the Ontario Biodiversity Council, which is a bit like the fisheries commission, a network of organizations that try to address biodiversity, obviously. One of the things we use a lot is ecosystem services. We’re going beyond the production of fish, which is an ecosystem service, but ecosystems do a lot of other things. We try to tie economics to not just the landings of fish but the other services provided by a well-working environment.
I talked about wetlands a few minutes ago. Wetlands provide a variety of those sorts of services. Part of the discussion is to get away from simply economics. I don’t mean “simply” in any pejorative way. It’s really important. But there are other ways of looking at this, and drawing that type of value into the discussion is really important.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, witnesses. A really important point is you’ve really underlined the complexities that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission needs to manage, and often the competing interests. I really appreciate you highlighting that, Ms. Graham, because it is a talent to manage competing interests in a way that actually gets things done. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to our witnesses. I am glad to hear that the fishers are talking about the environment here and that the two worlds are linked. I find that and what you said really interesting. I’m from the Maritimes, and our fishers often talk about the environment. However, that does not lead to action or results, or it isn’t necessarily what’s important at the critical time.
My question is about the commissioner who will be appointed and the actions that DFO has taken in terms of money. Is there anything else we should know about DFO’s past actions that could affect the way things go in the future? I would also like to know whether it will be possible for the commissioner appointed at DFO to really be neutral, with no conflicts of interest, and to make sure that DFO doesn’t take any actions in the future that could harm your organization or the relationship between Canada and the United States.
It might be a tough question.
[English]
Mr. Whillans: I’ll take a short crack at that. I don’t think a Fisheries and Oceans commissioner can be neutral. I don’t think that’s possible. They would be placed in a position where there’s a structural conflict. No, that’s my short answer to that one.
Fisheries and Oceans have been kicked at a bit, but I really want to praise them. On the sea lamprey control program, they’re absolutely fantastic. They are top scientists. They are very good at what they do.
Also, speaking to what I think was raised here earlier, in my experience, dealing with Fisheries and Oceans people who are not lamprey people as part of the areas of concern, restoration and so on, they’re first-rate, absolutely dedicated and tremendous people. You’re speaking to a structural problem, and I think it would be structurally problematic.
Ms. Graham: I don’t really have anything to add to that. Frankly, I wasn’t aware that there was consideration for an alternate for the Canadian commissioners up until earlier today, so I really can’t comment on that at this point. However, it seems to me that when you’ve got a service provider that’s sitting as part of the oversight body, there’s potential for a conflict of interest to occur, which I think has been evidenced in the past.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Dr. Browne, anything further?
Mr. Browne: The other part of your question was whether there was any other occurrence, I think was the word you used, that was problematic as having DFO, other than the allocation of funds. I don’t think we’ve addressed that. I was trying to think.
In my short experience of it from 2018, what I noticed as an outsider — I’m not a commissioner; I don’t sit in those meetings — was there seemed to be delays in appointing people. Some of the commissioners who were appointed shifted positions with DFO as they were commissioner. If you were an ADM of a different part of DFO, it’s hard not to bring that hat into the commissioner role.
So there was a bit of pointing and what section of DFO was kind of being represented by a commissioner, even though it’s not even the role of the commissioner to represent that part of DFO. It’s really to sit there as Canada, but you certainly felt that they were speaking from their section of DFO’s perspective sometimes. That wasn’t as problematic as the funds and the structural problem of a conflict of interest.
Those are some things that I noticed. I don’t know if you noticed any other problematic things, Tom or Jane, about the commissioner set-up.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. I think it’s worth reiterating that we have heard often that the quality of the work of those on the water or the ground for DFO, those in the labs, those providing line operational functionality, has been exemplary. The challenges we’ve seen with the conflicts of interest not being managed and not being able to be managed in the culture of DFO occurred at a much higher decision-making level than those on the ground. I think the distinction that you’ve made for us is really important.
Senator Petten: I’ve been listening, and it sounds like you have a model, which would be great to look at or emulate in other places. I’m thinking about my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador and wondering if this is a model that could be looked at in other jurisdictions. You mentioned, I think, Dr. Browne, under the Great Lakes, you have a specified area.
Do you think it’s possible that we could make this a model in other areas as a recommendation?
Mr. Browne: I definitely think it’s possible. I believe it’s been looked at before, how the Great Lakes fisheries are managed between the two countries, the relationships and the structures to do that and how that compares to what’s being done on the East Coast or West Coast to manage our commercial fisheries.
There are quite different scenarios in terms of how ownership works in those fisheries, how they’re governed and who manages them, but yes, that’s what I was implying, anyway, that in this fishery, it’s not all fun and games either. Fisheries managers run into conflict with those they manage, but I do find the forms that the GLFC creates help to resolve those and build working relationships between groups that may not otherwise have any real vested interest in working together.
I think our fisheries on both coasts also run into conflict, so yes, I agree: I think it would be possible to look at how GLFC does that and see if that’s appropriate for some of our other fisheries.
Senator Petten: Thank you.
Mr. Whillans: If I could add to what David said, your question is really interesting. I worked on a project that was funded by the Canadian International Development Agency that was on watershed restoration in the Andes in Ecuador. At the bottom of the watershed that we were working on was a big lake, so it was very much about lake management. It was called Lake Mikakucha. We had to figure out how to manage this project with money coming from Canada to the development scenario.
It was primarily Indigenous — 88% of the people in the watershed were Indigenous people — and the other 10% or so had a Hispanic background. The power relationship down there was that the Hispanics controlled things and the Indigenous people didn’t, so they didn’t want to set up a relationship that was like that.
What we ended up with, just to make the story very short, is a model sort of like the fisheries commission model. It’s a bit like the one I mentioned with respect to the areas of concern, where we had an advisory board and then we had a decision-making board, the people who would go out and do the work. The advisory board was made up of people like me.
I had to be responsible to the Canadian International Development Agency for the funds. They were flowing through my university, but I agreed that I would not vote on the expenditure of those funds down there. I would have a time in meetings to tell them what it would mean if they went in one direction or another, but I didn’t have a vote.
The only people who had a vote were the Indigenous people who lived around that watershed and were part of the other committee that would take action and make sure that it occurred. It was an interesting model wherein some of what the fishery commission is doing is in that, but it’s not a transferable model, just parts of it. I think there are certainly aspects of what the fishery commission model represents that are transferable to other locations.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. If I could follow on that quickly, do you have any recommendations for us relating to our own management of the Great Lakes fisheries in terms of respecting our own Indigenous communities that we share the lakes with? Do you have any recommendations or observations that we should consider in that regard?
Mr. Whillans: Let me just say that you were about to hear from, but the session was postponed, Andrew Muir, a science director for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Andrew has a long history of involvement with Indigenous communities across Canada. One of the things that he was very interested in was trying to find a way by which the commission could better communicate with First Nations on the Canadian side and tribes on the American side regarding whatever matter, but science is his major interest.
Science, in this case — I’ll just back up and say it’s knowledge generation. It’s not just Western science, but it’s also the generation of traditional knowledge and approaches to understanding that Indigenous communities represent.
Andrew was at a meeting three years ago of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, which is a very important organization in Great Lakes science generation. At that meeting, there were two professors from my university, Mary-Claire Buell and Barb Wall, who were presenting on what they were working on, which was to develop a network of people in First Nations and tribes who were interested in Great Lakes environmental issues, not just fish.
They were not talking about a decision-making network. It was not that at all. It was simply a way of communicating effectively among those interested nations and allowing their voices to be heard in the broader community in developing ways of doing that, especially focused on knowledge development.
Andrew went there, and he said, “This is what we’ve been hoping might occur through the commission.” He stepped in and asked whether they might be interested in developing partnership on Great Lakes and Indigenous networking. They were, so they’re slowly moving toward that.
At our annual general meeting of the fishery commission in June, it was announced that there would be a partnership with those two and others who are working with them at my university focused on developing a Great Lakes-Indigenous network and also forming a scholarship program and a community learner’s program, which is basically when community members take part in these sorts of general fact-finding types of operations. That is now going forward.
If you want to see anything about that, there’s something called the Indigenous Great Lakes Network. There’s a website at Trent University that refers to that. I’ll just read the goal:
. . . to foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and communication among Great Lakes-based Indigenous communities, Nations, Tribes, organizations, and researchers, through the Indigenous Great Lakes Network.
That is something that is just emerging. Certainly, there’s been long-standing interest in that, but there is now a movement in the direction of having a network that can do that communication. Again, it’s not a decision-making network. It is a network of independent First Nations and tribes, helping them to communicate not just among each other but with the science bodies and knowledge-generation bodies. We’re pretty excited about this new development. I suggest that you ask Andrew Muir about that when he appears on October 24, when he is tentatively scheduled. He can tell you a lot more about it.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: I was going to ask about the Indigenous science, but I understand Trent University has a program that you played a part in. What kinds of things are they doing at the university in terms of Indigenous science?
Mr. Whillans: Thank you for that question. Let me clarify — I’m not in the Chanie Wenjack School for Indigenous Studies. I’m in the School of the Environment. But I was chair of the environmental program when we developed a joint degree program in Indigenous Environmental Studies. I was also part of the formation of an Indigenous Environmental Institute, which is more to handle external relationships on those sorts of manners.
Trent’s had an Indigenous Studies program, the longest standing in North America. It’s had some 40-plus years of having elders’ conferences every spring, hosting them, not controlling the people who are part of them. It has a full degree program in Indigenous Environmental Studies and you can get a degree on Indigenous Environmental Studies. You can focus on fisheries within that if you want to. We have programs designed to specialize in those areas. That’s a short answer to your question.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. That’s an interesting discussion.
Ms. Graham, I understand that you were instrumental in attaining — I’ve been calling it MSC — but the Marine Stewardship Council label for some species of Lake Erie fish certifying that the fishery is being managed in a sustainable way. Congratulations to you for the work you have done in that area.
Could you talk to us a little bit about what it means to be certified? What does the MSC label mean for fishers and for the fishery overall?
Ms. Graham: Thank you for the question. MSC is the global gold standard to show that a fishery is sustainable, well managed and has minimal impact on the environment around it. I appreciate the sentiment, but it was not me alone who did this. A group of many people put this together. Our first certification came through back in 2015 or 2016, I believe. I can’t remember quite when it was, but it took a lot of work to do it.
Then, every year, there’s a surveillance audit, so there’s a lot of work that goes into that too. It’s only possible through the partnerships that we have with other organizations, scientists and biologists and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission working together. These projects are a big lift. There’s a lot of information required to put this MSC certification together. All this information flows through a third-party verification process to show that this is meeting that global standard that’s been developed for MSC to get and use that label.
As I say, this process was in place for a long time before I came to the fishery. It took a long time to get there because there was so much work required to do so. There was recognition by the industry that if the fishery wanted to maintain and grow markets in a global environment where there was more and more focus on being sustainable and proving that you’re sustainable, this is the way they needed to move.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that, and thank you so much to the three of you. Like all the witnesses on the study of Great Lakes, you’ve all given us so much information. You’re so knowledgeable. We’ve asked a wide variety of questions here today. We really appreciate it.
The Acting Chair: Very well said. Thanks to you for encouraging us as a group to study this issue.
If I could ask a couple of last questions as we’re wrapping up. I don’t think there are other questions from colleagues. I want to examine one issue, Ms. Graham, and that is that Global Affairs Canada is responsible for managing our trade agreements if there are punishing tariffs put in place affecting certain industries and we need to respond to them.
Do you see any concerns as a fishery in the Great Lakes around the role of Global Affairs there? Are we introducing perhaps another conflict that might need to be managed? Is there anything you are concerned about as representing fishers in the Great Lakes in that regard?
Ms. Graham: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. It’s very good. I don’t have an answer for that right now. It’s something that the organization and the industry really need to take a look at, where there might be concern in that regard. I would be pleased to get back to you with something on that.
The Acting Chair: If there are any significant concerns, please. When we’re in trade battles, there are always winners and losers. I don’t personally foresee this as being a big issue relative to the issues we’re trying to overcome here, but I thought it was important to ask the question.
Dr. Browne, in Nova Scotia, we’ve been addressing the issue of acid rain and the negative effects on fish populations for the last 20 years by liming certain rivers and enhancing the alkalinity of the river. It’s had a tremendously positive impact on the salmon population in the rivers where that occurs. This committee is about to start studying that issue later in the fall.
Do you have any experience in this regarding the Great Lakes or know whether the effects of acid rain have caused environmental, ecological or habitat damage?
Mr. Browne: First, the Great Lakes were affected by acid rain, but the lucky — it’s really not lucky. It has to do with our geology and how the different parts of Canada are made up. There isn’t a lasting land-based threat of acidification of the streams and rivers in the Great Lakes Basin like there is in Nova Scotia, where you have this persistent low pH that will last for decades and decades before it’s gone.
Liming, as you say, appears to be quite a good solution to this problem — not an inexpensive or simple solution, but a solution.
Acid rain was a problem in the Great Lakes. It could be again, but by reducing the sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere with the agreements that we entered into bilaterally with the Americans because it was a problem that Canada could not solve alone — it would have been impossible — a lot of that issue has been alleviated in the Great Lakes. Our issues there are really around invasive species, ecosystem change due to climate warming and the nutrients and persistent pollution.
In the application of that, we don’t have streams in the Great Lakes that need to be limed in order to sustain fish production, but we do have streams, bays, harbours and wetlands that need to be cleaned up and restored. As in Nova Scotia, that will take expertise and dollars to do and enhance our fisheries.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Browne. On behalf of the entire committee, I want to thank the three of you considerably for your passion, dedication, expertise and commitment as volunteers helping the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and all of us through your efforts. It’s really been impressive to listen to your testimony, as Senator Cordy said and as all of us feel. I want to thank you for that.
Colleagues, we are thanking Jane Graham, former executive director, Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association; Tom Whillans, Professor Emeritus, Trent University; and David Browne, Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation. Thanks for being with us today. It was a great honour.
(The committee adjourned.)