THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 22, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:33 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its work.
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening. My name is Bev Busson. I’m a senator from British Columbia, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting this evening.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. 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’re 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 be happy to try to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Cape Breton.
The Deputy 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. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Richard Goodyear, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer; and Niall O’Dea, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy.
On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank you for being here today. I understand that Niall O’Dea will be providing the opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will surely have questions to ask you.
You have the floor, Mr. O’Dea. Thank you very much.
Niall O’Dea, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you very much, chair, and good evening, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today regarding the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
My name is Niall O’Dea, and I am the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. To my right, I am joined by our Chief Financial Officer Richard Goodyear.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
The Great Lakes cover more than 243,000 square kilometres, holding one fifth of the world’s freshwater supply. The lakes are an important economic and environmental asset to the states and provinces which surround them, as they depend on them for drinking water, recreation, transportation, power and economic opportunities.
As the members of this committee would be aware, the Great Lakes system is not immune to human activity that takes place around it. Over the years, the lakes have been impacted by construction and land development, industrial pollution, climate change and the introduction of invasive species. Although my department is most often associated with our work in the ocean environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada plays an important role in protecting the Great Lakes.
In the Great Lakes, the department has the responsibility to manage the impacts on fish and their habitat through the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, the implementation of the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations, administering the Species at Risk Act, managing the Asian Carp Program and, most relevant to our discussion today, the delivery of the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s sea lamprey control program.
Sea lamprey were unintentionally introduced to the upper Great Lakes in the early 1920s during the construction of the Welland Canal. Of course, as you know, by the 1950s, the growing population of invasive sea lamprey had severely destroyed valuable stocks of Great Lakes fish, particularly whitefish and lake trout.
As has been explained by previous witnesses, this devastation prompted the signing of the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States of America and Canada. The convention led to the establishment of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a binational body charged with combating invasive sea lamprey, carrying out research and science, and fisheries management efforts to ensure a sustainable and abundant fishery for years to come.
Over the last 70 years, this partnership between Canada and the United States has been very successful, reducing the sea lamprey population in the Great Lakes by 90%. This success would not have been possible without the dedicated staff of the commission’s secretariat, the Province of Ontario, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and, of course, our colleagues and partners in organizations in the United States.
This is not to say that this relationship has been without its challenges. As Senator Cordy mentioned previously, “. . . there are always blips along the road in any agreement . . . .” However, I think that in recent years we have been able to work together to address areas where a lack of clarity has led to issues in the past.
On this recent work, I’d be remiss if I didn’t recognize the hard work of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s former executive secretary Robert Lambe and our own outgoing Associate Deputy Minister Kevin Brosseau, who worked very closely together to improve the relationship between the commission and our department during this time.
We have also been able to provide greater confidence with regard to budgetary planning. In addition to the $44.9 million announced in Budget 2022, there was also a commitment to provide greater clarity on the amount of funding the secretariat receives each year. With these new funds, the Government of Canada’s annual contribution to the commission has increased to $19.6 million, demonstrating our commitment to improving the Great Lakes fishery now and in years to come.
New funding will continue Canadian sea lamprey control activities, invest in important fishery scientific research and support the commission’s work in coordinating binational fisheries management across the Great Lakes.
Before I close, I wish to speak to the concerns raised by Chair Baker and Commissioner Provost around the timing of the transfer. With the passing of the order-in-council, the change in ministerial responsibility has now taken place.
I can assure you, senators, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is in full support of this transfer. We will continue to work closely with our colleagues to ensure a smooth transition to Global Affairs Canada.
Our department looks forward to continuing to work closely with the commission on the delivery of the sea lamprey control program — a collaboration, as noted by a few of your witnesses, which has worked extremely well in the past and will continue to in the future.
Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Before proceeding to questions from interested senators, I apologize. I went over and specifically asked about how to say your first name, and then I said it wrong after all of that. I do apologize, Mr. O’Dea. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you for being with us today.
I will start with the past before we move to the future. Based on your comments, I am puzzled about the discussions on budget. We have two people here who can answer those questions.
We heard about government appropriations not making it through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in a way that was quite troubling. Can you explain that to us? We need to know the argument and why it happened. How on earth was that allowed to occur?
Richard Goodyear, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, senator. I can take that question. I think you’re probably referring to the period around 2022.
Senator C. Deacon: We saw 20 years of evidence.
Mr. Goodyear: If we want to go back over 20 years, there was a time when Canada fell short regarding the U.S. and Canadian appropriation in terms of the percentage that was required in accordance with the treaty — 61% from the U.S. and 39% from Canada.
The simple answer is the funding was simply not available. It wasn’t a fact of not providing it. It was simply that we didn’t have it to pass on. In those years, we fell short, understanding that there was always a conversation with our American colleagues that, when possible, we would increase to the extent that met our requirements.
Over a number of years, we did fall short. There were also a number of years where we overfunded somewhat, but not as often as we underfunded over the 20-year period. There were several years where we exceeded the requirement of the treaty.
Senator C. Deacon: Mr. Goodyear, if you could help me on that, what I’m interpreting from what you’re saying is, in fact, Fisheries and Oceans Canada never received the funding from the Government of Canada that was appropriated and only passed on what it was given. Let me understand exactly what you’re saying.
Mr. Goodyear: For the funding that was appropriated for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, we had the component for the sea lamprey control program. That’s always been the case. What was remaining was passed on to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. That was provided for that purpose.
Senator C. Deacon: The funding for the sea lamprey control program was retained versus sent to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to then buy services back?
Mr. Goodyear: The way it works, senator, is every year there is a discussion and work plan that’s created. Based on that work plan, there’s a determination of how much sea lamprey control will cost. That’s a negotiated amount with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Once that amount is determined, that’s the amount that is retained. In the event that DFO didn’t spend all of that, we would then push the remainder to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Invariably, it wasn’t that we retained it; we would have a negotiated amount with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Then at the end of the fiscal year, whatever remains is also provided.
Senator C. Deacon: If I could keep drilling on this for a moment, we understood that many program activities had to be curtailed from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission because they did not receive the amount of funding that was appropriated to them by the Government of Canada in the budget, and some of it was retained by DFO.
This suggests that, in fact, those funds were supposed to go through and never arrived, and part of the whole plan to manage the sea lamprey control program was the funding was intended to go to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
What we have heard from several witnesses so far is not corresponding with what we’re hearing from you.
Mr. Goodyear: Senator, the formula is 61% and 39%. Of that, once the budget is negotiated, it determines how much is the Canadian share and how much is the U.S. share.
What is being referred to is the fact that we didn’t provide the entirety of Canada’s share for a number of years. It is not that we retained the funding; we simply didn’t have it to provide.
The sea lamprey control was, again, negotiated; that was retained by DFO. In 2017, we had an increase, and again in 2022. When those monies were received, those were provided. It is the same construct: the negotiation of sea lamprey control and the remainder going to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m going to digest what I’ve heard and try to come back.
The Deputy Chair: Senator, we’ll give you an opportunity during the second round to pursue the mystery.
Senator C. Deacon: I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you both for being here this evening.
I’m going to keep going from where Senator Deacon was. Again, I think we’re looking forward. The two commissioners said we want to look forward, but not so much. It’s sort of that stone in your shoe that you want to get comfortable with and find out how it’s evolved.
To start with a quote from Robert Service: “A promise made is a debt unpaid . . . .”
These are agreements that we’ve been part of but fell short on for a period of over 20 years. What would benefit the senators is this: Where are the decisions made? At what level of the department do they say, “We’re running short on funds this year; we’ll hold back on the money for the Great Lakes”? How does the department come up with those types of decisions? If there’s a shortfall in the A-based budget, how is it determined that it will be the Great Lakes fund that will be affected over this protracted period of time?
Mr. Goodyear: Thanks for your question, senator.
These are operational decisions. Every year, there is a review of all of our operational requirements, whether it be conservation and protection or the Canadian Coast Guard — since the Canadian Coast Guard has been part of the department — across the full gamut of our operations.
We look at available funding. We privilege funding where we feel the operational requirements are the most important and pressing. Resources are allocated. In some cases, tough decisions are made. Not everything gets the full suite of funding it requires. In those years, I doubt it would have been just the Great Lakes Fishery Commission that didn’t receive the funding that the equation required as a part of the convention. There probably would have been other aspects of the department affected as well. These decisions are made every year.
Senator Cuzner: Operationally, what other departments would have fallen under such shortfalls for a protracted period of time?
Mr. Goodyear: Certainly, there’s never enough funding to do everything we need to do. That decision of prioritization is an annual exercise.
Often, you try to be as efficient as you can be with the resources you have. Invariably, hardly ever is anything funded at 100%. That just doesn’t happen.
You receive an allocation. You look across all of your requirements. In some cases, you have to prioritize. I would offer that very rarely is anything 100% funded. It’s simply a prioritization exercise in determining where the precious resources go when provided to the department.
Senator Cuzner: I have another question regarding going forward as my colleague digests over there. The hope is that the commissioners will both be included in the go-forward process, the planning, et cetera. Perhaps you could share with the committee what the plan is as the transition takes place with the commission.
Mr. O’Dea: Absolutely. I’d be happy to speak to that. As I noted at the outset, the order-in-council decision was made yesterday, so that effectuates the transfer of ministerial responsibility from the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
With that, it would be best for you to speak to Global Affairs Canada about what the process will look like going forward, but I can tell you that we are working actively with Global Affairs Canada to ensure they have clarity on all aspects of the program and the portfolio management responsibility so that they can take on that role effectively and in continuity with us. That relationship between our two departments has existed for quite a few years and exists across a variety of fora, so we have active lines of communication, and we are working through that.
Senator Cuzner: All witnesses have underlined the fact that they hold in high regard the relationship they’ve had — other than the shortfall and the funding — with DFO, characterizing it as a positive one. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: I’m going to follow up with the same line of questioning. We can all come back with different approaches later. Thank you both so much for being here.
Mr. O’Dea, I have reviewed your testimony to the House from June of last year. I reviewed the history of the process to move the Great Lakes file from DFO to Global Affairs Canada. I strongly support the Prime Minister’s decision to remove the Great Lakes from DFO and to Global Affairs Canada. Witnesses who have appeared before our committee have also been strongly in favour of moving it to Global Affairs Canada.
My two colleagues have spoken about what has happened over the years. For decades, the commission’s budgetary needs and requests have fallen short. The challenge is that when we’re dealing with the Great Lakes, we’re dealing with a partnership with the United States, so that makes it even more challenging.
When Parliament agreed to provide $19.6 million for the Great Lakes in Budget 2022, I was thrilled. I’m co-chair of the Great Lakes group within Canada and the U.S., and the people within that organization thought it was important enough that we should have a subcommittee to deal specifically with the Great Lakes. Yet DFO decided they would not give this money to the Great Lakes, leaving us all astounded, because it’s not just the members of the Canada-U.S. group, but also many of the MPs living around the Great Lakes who understand the importance of it. It was astounding to find out that people had spoken to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Fisheries, begging and grovelling to get the funding, and then received the funding, but then we found out that it was sitting in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and not being sent over. This was contrary to what the Great Lakes commissioners had approved.
Others have asked you how this happened. But why did it happen? Knowing — as we knew — that this was funding that was to go specifically to the Great Lakes, but it didn’t happen, or wasn’t going to happen, was very infuriating; that would be putting a light tone to it. Please, I know that you’ve tried to answer my colleagues, but this is just not acceptable.
Mr. Goodyear: Thanks for the question, senator. In 2022 — which was my first year as CFO at DFO, and I recall it quite clearly — there was a discussion going on after the funding was approved. It was a discussion with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in terms of what that would look like and what that was going to provide, and ultimately that was all provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission that year.
Senator Cordy: That took a lot of work.
Mr. Goodyear: Yes, there were discussions back and forth, senator. There was some conversation about expanding the sea lamprey control. At one point, there were discussions about the potential for additional stations on the Great Lakes. All of those conversations resulted in the requirement for further discussions, and once those discussions were had with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the determination was that all the funding would be provided. Starting in 2022-23, and since that time, the $19.6 million that had been earmarked for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission was provided.
Senator Cordy: There was a period of time in which the American members of the commission refused to meet with the Canadians because the Canadians were not holding up their share of the budget. The American legislators complained to members of Parliament when we were meeting in Washington, and sometimes there were online meetings. DFO kept saying that there was not a problem. But if the commissioners are not meeting, then “Houston, we have a problem.”
Was there any reaction within the department when you saw that the commissioners were not meeting? Mr. O’Dea, that would be a question to you. Did nobody think that this should be red flagged and maybe the money that had been sent to DFO for the Great Lakes should, in fact, be sent to them?
Mr. O’Dea: Absolutely. I have to say two things: At no time was it envisioned that 100% of the money wouldn’t be invested in the Great Lakes and in the activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. As my colleague has noted, the discussion was about how that money would flow and whether it would go directly to the commission and be returned where activities were required of DFO, or be held by the commission or remain with DFO for the undertaking of activities on behalf of the commission.
Absolutely, it was a cause of concern that the commissioners were not meeting. As my colleague has referenced, the amount of work undertaken — both with our U.S. colleagues and internal to our system and with our colleagues at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat — to resolve that came from a serious concern on all of our parts regarding the state of the relationship at that stage and a recognition that there was an issue to be addressed, which is something that I would have remarked upon in my 2023 testimony as well.
Senator Cordy: My closing comment on this issue is that we were very fortunate that the commission and the commissioners had a very good working relationship, or this could have been far more damaging than it was.
I also want to say that DFO staff in the field have been extremely competent and were very hard workers. I think it was because of those two things that there was not a collapse in the total relationship. Thank you. I’ll probably come back on something else.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I just want to clarify a few small points. Is the 19 million equivalent to 39%? I’ll ask my question afterwards.
Mr. Goodyear: Yes, senator, it meets the 31% requirement for Canada.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. I gather that, since 2022, the money allocated to the Department of Fisheries has been entirely for the lamprey, and the remainder has gone to the commission. Prior to 2022, did Fisheries and Oceans Canada decide to put funds earmarked for the commission or the lamprey program elsewhere than in the commission or its project? I don’t mind if you prefer to answer in English.
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you. As I mentioned to Senator Deacon, from what I can tell from reviewing the funding that was provided, there is no indication that the funding that was provided was the funding that was attributed. In years where there was insufficient funding, we fell short, and when funding was received — starting in 2017 and onward — that funding was provided. There was a period in 2022 when, again, there was some discussion related to other activities in terms of the nature of how that funding would flow, but otherwise, since 2022-23, we have made whole the Canadian contribution.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: It has been said that Fisheries and Oceans Canada wants to appoint a commissioner for the future. What do you think of that idea? Do you wish to comment?
Mr. O’Dea: Yes. Now that the Prime Minister has made a decision on governance and ordered its implementation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will appoint the new commissioners through the Governor-in-Council. She will be making the choices.
Senator Aucoin: Perhaps my question wasn’t clear. I was referring to Fisheries and Oceans, which will apparently create a commissioner position to be on the commission. Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest?
Mr. O’Dea: No, we don’t think that would be the case. Even with the commission’s arguments about holding the trustee role and being commissioner, they saw a conflict of interest challenge. Now that the trustee role is elsewhere, we don’t think there’s still a risk or a risk of a perceived conflict of interest if the commissioner comes from Fisheries and Oceans.
I just want to reiterate that Fisheries and Oceans Canada will not choose or recommend future commissioners. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will make such recommendations.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Before we move to the second round, I have a question of my own to pose to either or both of you. I wanted to reiterate that witnesses who came before our committee in the recent past talked about the fact that the relationship with your department, as far as operational sea lamprey control was concerned, was very successful as it related to the American counterparts in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and, at this point in time, you will remain the service delivery agent for the sea lamprey control issue and problem.
In your view, is this change in ministerial responsibility going to advantage or disadvantage your existing role as the service delivery agent for the control of sea lamprey?
Mr. O’Dea: I appreciate the question, chair.
I would say that it would have a neutral impact on our ability to deliver sea lamprey control. For 70 years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has had that role, and likewise it’s our counterparts in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with whom we have close collaboration in a variety of domains; I think that will persist through.
We are supportive of the machinery decision, and perhaps it removes the spectre and challenge of the relationship that has existed in recent years in a way that makes it simpler on a day-to-day basis for our colleagues in program delivery to do that very important work.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Goodyear, do you have anything to add to that comment?
Mr. Goodyear: Madam Chair, from my perspective as the CFO, from a functional perspective, the sea lamprey control program will continue to be provided in the same way as it always has been. We will work through the funding idiosyncrasies in terms of Global Affairs Canada now as opposed to through Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Otherwise, for the operation, there will be very little change. It will be largely transparent for those who are delivering the operation of the sea lamprey control program.
The Deputy Chair: Perhaps you have answered my question, but do you see this transition as an advantage or a disadvantage for the focus that DFO is responsible for vis-à-vis fisheries in Canada and your responsibilities generally?
Mr. O’Dea: I would regard it as neutral. We have similar relationships in bilateral commissions with counterparts in the U.S. in a variety of domains. Our relationship in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission context was similar.
At the same time, we work with Global Affairs Canada to support their leadership in a variety of other bilateral and multilateral fora, and we are pleased to do so. We have strong relationships with our counterparts at Global Affairs Canada to be able to sustain the efficiency of operation, I would say.
The Deputy Chair: Your department feels comfortable in that environment?
Mr. O’Dea: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, again, to the witnesses. I’m sorry, but I’m still really puzzled by the answers we’re getting.
Certainly, we’ve seen a lot of evidence of letters and correspondence about this issue over many years to groups in the United States and Canada from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission regarding the shortfall and the appropriation to DFO. Over 20 years, the number is about US$65 million, so it’s not a small amount of money.
Do you understand that the funds appropriated to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission through DFO were, in fact, appropriated as part of the funding agreement between the United States and Canada?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question.
Just to reiterate, the funding that was provided to DFO for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission over a number of years was insufficient to meet the percentage that was required of Canada. Unfortunately, in those years, we fell short.
When additional funding was provided to close the gap, those funds were provided, and as of the fiscal year 2022-23, we are meeting our full obligation.
Senator C. Deacon: That still really didn’t get to the point of the question.
The funds being appropriated to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada were intended to reach the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. You’re saying there was a shortfall, but was that shortfall in what you received at DFO which was intended — the budgetary amount — or was the shortfall between DFO and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission?
Did you pass through 100 cents on the dollar, I think, is the question because, certainly, the correspondence that we’ve seen does not suggest that you — and I know you just started in 2022; I heard that. However, the correspondence that we’ve seen does not suggest — in fact, it suggests exactly the opposite: 100 cents on the dollar arrived at DFO, but a fraction of that — a smaller amount — made it through to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. That number in some years was as big as a $7-million differential. Other years, it was as low as a US$50,000 differential.
So 100 cents on the dollar came in or not?
Mr. O’Dea: Maybe I can take a run at the question, if I might.
So 100% of what has been appropriated to DFO to fund the activities in support of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has gone into that purpose over the years. I just want to draw the distinction between the gap in funding and the flow through of funding, as I understand what the question is getting at.
Yes, 100% of what DFO has had to provide for the activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has been invested for that purpose. Some of that is retained by DFO for the delivery of the sea lamprey control program, and some of that is delivered to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for its science-based and other activities. Historically, since 1954, or since the activities of sea lamprey control were established a few years later, that has been the historical arrangement.
Over the years, if there has been a shortfall in what DFO has available to it to provide for that combination of activities of sea lamprey control and other activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, requests have been put forward to the budgetary process in order to secure those. When we have been unsuccessful in doing that over the course of years, that has been where a gap may have emerged.
I want to make clear that funding that has been provided to DFO for the purpose of sea lamprey control and the broader activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has gone into that purpose and not others.
Senator C. Deacon: But you have retained some of the funding to deliver sea lamprey control. Arbitrarily, it didn’t flow to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and back to you for services rendered?
Mr. O’Dea: No, because we’re not a contractor.
Senator C. Deacon: But there is an agreement up front between DFO and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the provision of certain services in return for payment?
Mr. O’Dea: No. To be clear, under Article VI of the convention that established the Great Lakes Fisheries Convention Act, the commission is to make use of the agents of governments to the extent possible to undertake their activities. We see that in the case of the U.S., where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does have a contractual relationship with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It’s how the U.S. appropriation system works differently and the way that their arrangement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates differently. In the Canadian context, for many decades, the arrangement has been that DFO delivers sea lamprey control on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and retains an agreed portion of its appropriation for that purpose and flows the rest of that funding to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Where that agreed amount of appropriation in a given year is underspent, the balance is flowed as well to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Senator C. Deacon: You described a lack of clarity on this issue, and that was the source of confusion. How could there be 20 years of lack of clarity on this issue? If this was agreed upon by everybody, why are we hearing something very different from what you’re saying today?
Mr. O’Dea: If I might, that is why I want to draw the distinction between a lack of clarity around how the funds flow and a gap that emerged over the course of years in the respective investment by Canada and the U.S. in the activities of the commission writ large. Where a discrepancy, or a gap, has emerged in the funding provided by Canada and the U.S. respectively — which, as my colleague noted, took us away from our formula of 61% and 39% — those would have been requests made over the course of many years in the budget process to secure an appropriation that, in various years, may not have been successful and would have resulted in that ongoing gap in our respective funding.
Where the issues emerge, we seek to address them through recurring budget cycles, but it is an issue that nevertheless has persisted in certain instances, and we recognize there was a significant period of time in which that gap has existed. We are pleased that, currently, the gap no longer exists, and our U.S. counterparts have indicated that they are happy to work forward with us on the basis that we are now at parity in respect of proportionate contributions to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s activities.
Senator Cuzner: I don’t know if things are becoming any clearer with the line of questioning or not. I’m not convinced yet.
We heard through testimony that there’s been concern about the appointment of the Canadian representatives on the commission. What’s the process for the appointment of the Canadian commission members? Is there any rationale for why some positions have been open for two or three years? Are there steps we can take to ensure that we can work in a quicker fashion to have these positions filled going forward?
Mr. O’Dea: Thank you for the question.
Just to explain the process, prior to the order-in-council that was brought forward yesterday, recommendations of commissioners to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would have been made by the Minister of Fisheries. Those typically were done for two of the commissioner roles on the recommendation of the Ontario government, and two of the roles would have been federally identified nominees. We currently have a full slate of candidates: two from Ontario and two nominated federally.
There have been gaps in appointments, and that’s a process that yields challenges at times. There can be delays in appointment processes. I understand that as Global Affairs Canada takes on the role of supporting the Minister of Foreign Affairs in making these recommendations, they may be able to speak to how they would ensure gaps in the Governor-in-Council appointments don’t emerge. This is a challenge we face across the system, but we recognize the importance of having a full slate and a full representation on the Canadian commission.
Senator Cuzner: That’s good. Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I’m even more confused about the lamprey. I understood from your comments that a commission program dealt with controlling the lamprey. However, the funding now goes through Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which decides how much money to allocate to lamprey control. Is there one lamprey control program in the United States and another in Canada, independent from the commission, or has the commission administered, accepted, sponsored, authorized and approved one program through which Canada determines its share? There’s some confusion about poorly allocated funds. Could Canada have decided some years to provide more money than required under the 39%-61% split? I don’t know what to believe anymore. Could you please clarify?
Mr. O’Dea: Of course. There is a unified, coordinated lamprey control program for both countries. The commission holds discussions with its subcommittees, including the lamprey control program subcommittee, on binational programming for the year in question to decide the nature and cost of the activities that will carry on. This unified programming forms the basis of discussions between the commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for the Americans’ participation in the program. The commission works with Fisheries and Oceans to implement the program on the Canadian side. Everything is based on that unified programming, leading to decisions about how it’s implemented in each country’s waters.
Senator Aucoin: You’re saying that every time funds are allocated to the lamprey control program, it’s under the agreement signed for each year?
Mr. O’Dea: That’s correct.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Mr. O’Dea, you were before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in 2023. You said DFO was not in a conflict of interest — I want to read the words carefully — because your agency and the commission were in alignment; that’s what you said.
The agency decided how much was going to be sent to the commission, which I would say went against Parliament’s wishes because we looked for money so that we could be partners with the United States.
Given the fact that the commission’s program for 2023 was definitely not in alignment with the funds they were receiving from DFO, they wondered how they were going to make do with the amount of money sent to them.
Given the Prime Minister and the House Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans found DFO to be in conflict, how can you say there was no conflict? How can you say everything was in alignment when you look at what happened in 2022-23? It certainly was not meeting the expectations that parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and the House committee had, as the money was not going where it should be going?
Mr. O’Dea: I want to distinguish a conflict in a relationship from a conflict of interest.
Certainly, we recognize and have acknowledged there were challenges in the development of the work around the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in light of the new investment at the time. My colleague has spoken to the active work done within that same period to ensure that was righted.
In respect of the issue of conflict of interest, our view is and remains that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission exists as a binational commission to advance the shared interests of Canada and the U.S. to control sea lamprey and ensure the preservation and conservation of fisheries and their restoration in the Great Lakes context.
It’s in that respect that DFO and Canada’s interest in that domain are exactly the same, which is to ensure there is control of the sea lamprey in that domain and that fisheries, where possible, are able to recover.
Senator Cordy: I will take you at what you said. Thank you. Many would find the alignment is not necessarily there.
I have a question, and I think somebody else asked it earlier. Has the Great Lakes transfer taken place and gone over to Global Affairs Canada yet?
Mr. O’Dea: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the order-in-council has been completed which transfers the responsibility for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission from the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In that sense, that restructuring change has been made. Global Affairs Canada will be able to speak to the mechanical details of the transfer of that responsibility.
DFO will continue per the Prime Minister’s decision to deliver the sea lamprey control program. The portfolio responsibility piece will transfer to Global Affairs Canada. We’re working actively with them to do that expeditiously.
Senator Cordy: Is there anything else that also has to be done, or is the transition complete?
Mr. O’Dea: Honestly, it’s fairly straightforward. You will see there is a transfer of financial resources that will happen in the context of upcoming estimates. Maybe my colleague would speak to that in greater detail.
Mr. Goodyear: The funding for this fiscal year of 2024-25 has been provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. As we move into 2025-26 via the Main Estimates, we will move the funding in its entirety to Global Affairs Canada so that they can provide the funding to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Deacon, due to our colleagues’ focus, we have five minutes left for you to ask a third round question.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m going to finish off from Senator Cordy.
What I feel I heard is the transfer will be completed, let’s say, by the end of this calendar year to the satisfaction of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and everyone involved, to Global Affairs Canada from DFO. You see nothing to get in the way of that?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question.
The funding earmarked for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has been provided by DFO to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for this fiscal year of 2024-25. The fiscal year ends on March 31.
As of the Main Estimates, which will be in the next fiscal period, that’s when the funding will flow through Global Affairs Canada as opposed to DFO. The order-in-council has been signed. The responsibility has been moved. Regarding the actual funding — given the fact that we have already transferred the funding in the current fiscal period — as it pertains to Global Affairs Canada, that will occur in the next fiscal period.
Senator C. Deacon: Nothing else needs to be done for this to meet the satisfaction of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as you understand it, other than that will occur for 2025-26?
Mr. Goodyear: Absolutely, and we’re working on that.
Senator C. Deacon: That’s wonderful news. Thank you.
I’m still struggling with the funding issue and the discordance of the relationship as a result of that.
I will read Mr. Baker’s comments to us:
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.
He concluded, “We lost some momentum when those funds were withheld inappropriately.”
All I want to say is there is strong discordance between the Canadian government and their Canadian partners of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the American partners of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission due to how the relationship was managed.
I’m hearing what you have said: You had the right to withhold funds to pay for the sea lamprey control program, but that approach caused challenges.
I’m going to speak for myself. I’m not confident there is a reason to have DFO in a governance role or a commissioner role in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or as a representative, given the fact that there is a 20-year history of discordance in the relationship as it relates to DFO, not in terms of the operational side.
Over and over again, we heard what a great job DFO did in the delivery of services. In managing the relationship, I have to say I have significant concerns about DFO potentially having a guaranteed commissioner seat going forward because of clarity not being brought to how things were being done and that being resolved at a political and commission level.
How do you answer my concern? Do you have anything to say in response? I may be unfair. It’s troubling because this is an important relationship between Canada and the U.S., and DFO was a part of the friction in that relationship, not the oil.
Mr. O’Dea: I would offer, first, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will make recommendations as to who will be commissioners in the future for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I have no doubt she will take the views of this committee, and others, under consideration as she makes those choices.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. O’Dea and Mr. Goodyear.
The Deputy Chair: I want to take this opportunity to thank both witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today to discuss this complicated and difficult subject. It’s late in the evening. I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you very much.
Senators, for our next panel, we will be hearing from the following representatives from Global Affairs Canada: Niall Cronin, Executive Director, United States Transboundary Affairs Division; and Felicia Minotti, Deputy Director, Energy and Environment, United States Transboundary Affairs Division. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand that Niall Cronin will be providing the opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will have questions for the witnesses.
I understand you were here to hear all the senators introduce themselves, so we’ll forego that part of the process and get right to your opening remarks, Mr. Cronin. Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Niall Cronin, Executive Director, United States Transboundary Affairs Division, Global Affairs Canada: Good evening. My name is Niall Cronin, and I am the Executive Director of the U.S. Transboundary Affairs Division at Global Affairs Canada, or GAC. I am joined this evening by Felicia Minotti, Deputy Director in the same division.
Before continuing, I would like to acknowledge that I am on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[English]
I would also like to note that on June 17 of this year, I was honoured to be appointed as a Canadian commissioner to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, although this evening, I will address you in my capacity as an executive director from Global Affairs Canada.
[Translation]
In my role at Global Affairs, I manage a team that provides analysis and advice to GAC senior officials, as well as to other federal departments, on border, energy, water and environment issues affecting Canada’s bilateral relations with the United States.
[English]
This includes subjects such as climate change, fossil fuels, water quality and quantity issues, and fisheries, as well as Canada’s engagement with the International Joint Commission — the commission responsible for the water quality and water levels and flows across the Canada-U.S. boundary, as well as providing advice to the two federal governments on transboundary water questions.
Our division also provides advocacy support to Canada’s diplomatic network in the U.S. on energy and environmental issues in order to ensure that a wide range of U.S. interlocutors understand the importance of these shared interests.
Our work has included tracking the activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We are in regular contact with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat, colleagues at DFO and U.S. counterparts, both directly and through Canada’s mission network in the United States.
We are aware that a number of stakeholders and parliamentarians have called for the transfer of ministerial responsibility for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to Global Affairs Canada. We note that the Government of Canada recently agreed with the recommendation from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development that this transfer should occur. We are pleased to report that this transfer was made official via an order-in-council dated October 18, 2024.
I want to assure you that my team and other colleagues at Global Affairs Canada are working closely with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat, DFO and Privy Council Office staff to ensure a speedy and smooth transition.
The Government of Canada remains committed to preserving our freshwater resources and protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species. The government recognizes that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s ongoing efforts are vital to controlling sea lamprey, conducting scientific research and maintaining cooperation among Canadian and American fishery management agencies across the Great Lakes Basin.
[Translation]
Canada’s relationship with the United States is of primordial importance. Bilateral institutions, like the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, are valuable mechanisms that enable our two countries to work together on important issues.
I want to close by thanking you, Madam Deputy Chair, for this committee’s ongoing work with respect to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
[English]
Thank you for helping to further raise the profile of this very important binational commission. With that, Ms. Minotti and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks for being with us. I understand from your opening comments that you cherish this organization and its importance, and that’s great to hear.
Now that it’s in your hands, could you speak to the best practices and the values, and how you see guiding your work now as the overseer in the federal government of this relationship and the funding to make this relationship a fruitful and productive one?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. One thing we certainly take very seriously is Canada’s responsibilities under the convention regarding the Great Lakes fishery and the commitment that both Canada and the United States have made to each other.
The other thing that we note is the dedication and commitment of the people who work both on the commission and for the commission, but also in implementing the commission’s activities. What we’re also quite seized with is ensuring that there is transparency in reporting out the financial commitment from Canada and continuing to ensure that financial obligation is met.
Senator C. Deacon: We’ve spent a lot of time in the last hour and over the course of this study focused on the discordance between two friends over how this relationship is managed.
With the authorities you’ve now been provided, do you feel that you have the ability to manage that relationship in a way where we won’t see that sort of discordance continue, which has presented challenges in our relationship in the past? Do you see anything that would prevent you from managing that effectively going forward?
Mr. Cronin: Again, thank you for the question. I’m quite confident in saying “no.” I think we have the resources, tools and skills to help manage the relationship. I do want to give credit to colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a couple of whom were speaking just before us. I know there’s been a lot of effort by DFO staff and senior leadership at the department, as well as within the Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat and amongst the commissioners, to help put that relationship back on track. I think this committee has rightly pointed out that there were issues in the past, and there’s recognition that something needed to change. Efforts were under way at DFO to right the relationship, and that has put things on a better track.
I think at Global Affairs Canada, we’re coming into this situation and taking on this new role in a much more positive place than we’ve ever been.
Senator C. Deacon: That’s great to hear. One tiny element is — I’m pushing my luck, chair — we hear great things about the operational service delivery from DFO. That’s been a universal comment. You don’t see anything getting in the way of that with this change going forward?
Mr. Cronin: No.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both very much. It’s nice to have Global Affairs Canada in front of us, undertaking what is somewhat new for you, although I know that you do a lot of international work overall. We have to recognize that the Great Lakes are indeed an international body of water.
Mr. Cronin, when Dr. Marc Gaden, the commission’s executive secretary, was before us a few weeks ago, he said that Global Affairs has initiated informal discussions to begin the process to move the portfolio to Global Affairs. He was encouraged by the level of interest at Global Affairs and that you seemed intent on trying to make it a smooth transition. This committee is very pleased — I’ll just speak for myself. I’m very pleased to see that it is moving to Global Affairs.
Can you tell us how you see the process moving forward to ensure that the committee and the commission will be fully at the table to provide input on all of the decisions? And how smooth of a transition is it going to be?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. I think the passage of the order-in-council is a very important first step. I was very pleased to see that happen last week.
As I said, we’re in regular conversation with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat staff. We’ve connected them to officials at Global Affairs who are responsible for budgeting and financial management so that those relationships are being strengthened and built up.
I think we’re building up our knowledge of the budgeting process from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission side. I think colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spoke about the various committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission developing plans. Then a budget is submitted to the commissioners for approval, which is then submitted to the countries, and then the funding flows from that. I think we’re getting things set up to make sure that we can meet both the funding commitments and also the time commitments so that the funding flows in a timely fashion. That would be important.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. How do you see your role now that you will be the newest member of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission? Being a Global Affairs employee of the Government of Canada while serving on the commission, how do you see that working?
Mr. Cronin: It’s a good question. First, there are two distinct roles, but I think I’m fortunate with the position I am in within Global Affairs as a director of the United States Transboundary Affairs Division because it does give me some insight into how our department works with other binational commissions. I’m very fortunate to have talented and experienced people on the team, like Ms. Minotti, whom I can rely on for advice.
I think what I can bring is an understanding of the Canada-U.S. relationship and the importance of Canada meeting our commitments. I took the appointment with a good deal of humility, and it’s a real honour. It is sort of about seeing how I can help advance the commission’s work, raise its profile and continue to tell the really positive story and contribution that it makes to the most important relationship that Canada has with any other country in the world.
Senator Cordy: Keep all of those commissioners from both countries speaking to one another, right? I’d like to say that’s a joke, but it has happened, unfortunately. Thank you for that.
Ms. Minotti, could you describe your relationship with your counterparts in the U.S. Department of State in terms of development and implementation of the policies to protect and improve the Great Lakes?
Felicia Minotti, Deputy Director, Energy and Environment, United States Transboundary Affairs Division, Global Affairs Canada: I have a very good relationship with my counterparts at the U.S. Department of State. As Mr. Cronin noted, we cover a wide range of issues, so I work with a couple different parts of the State Department. The Canada desk is where we work on a lot of transboundary water issues, and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission falls under a separate portfolio within the U.S. Department of State.
What I regularly do is engage in conversations with them. During some of the more tense periods of the relationship within the commission, my counterpart at the State Department and I spoke on a monthly basis just to check in and share concerns regarding where we were at on issues and conversations that were happening. As Mr. Cronin noted, it is a really important part of our work and what we do in building relationships and trust while being open and sharing concerns, which the U.S. had done and which we made sure we addressed and worked very closely on with our colleagues at DFO to share and address concerns.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. I know that many witnesses whom we’ve had before the committee have spoken about the relationships that have been built. They also spoke about fostering multi-jurisdictional and cross-border collaboration. I think you spoke about that in your comments. What makes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission work? It is cross-border and multi-jurisdictional, and all of those things.
Ms. Minotti: My opinion on that is it’s really about the dialogue. I work on Canada-U.S. water issues across the entire boundary — between all the provinces and the states. Building relationships is really key to the success in managing any issues of concern. It’s about having that relationship established with individuals, so if there is a problem, you can call them up, or when you’re at a meeting, you can chat for a few minutes on the side. I think that’s what has happened between us and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission over time and with our U.S. counterparts. It’s been the same thing: the ability to have that dialogue when there are challenges and concerns. Maybe we’re not always agreeing, but we’re committed to finding a way forward and working through to the best of everybody’s interests.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you for your comments. I have a few questions. Will there be personnel changes in implementing the transition? Will any Fisheries and Oceans Canada positions be transferred to Global Affairs Canada? Has that been discussed? Will it happen, and for how many positions? You’ve been appointed commissioner, but I imagine there is support staff?
[English]
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. I think that is a separate discussion between Global Affairs and DFO. Regarding what was discussed before, the $19.6 million annual contribution that was part of DFO’s budget will come to Global Affairs, but there will not be a transfer of personnel from DFO to Global Affairs.
We’re having a separate discussion between the two departments because, to Ms. Minotti’s earlier point, it takes people to build those relationships, to travel to meetings and to talk to one another. There will be a need for resources on our side to manage that, but that’s separate from the amount that’s being allocated in the budget for the activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I’m very aware of that. I want to know whether there will be future conflicts on the matter. No one has brought up the very important question of who will manage the programs and who will work in the background. I don’t want it to create problems, as has happened in the relationship. Could you tell us a bit more? I gather things won’t happen overnight.
[English]
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. I think it is an important point that you ended on: This is a transition. That’s why we’re having the discussions that we’re having with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
What will be important for us — going back to my earlier point about transparency — is that it is clear how Global Affairs will operate with respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and how we will operate with respect to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It’s important that all involved are aware of that, understand and agree. With the discussions and the relationship building, that’s what we’re driving at: to reach a place where it’s clear how the relationships will work, how the funding will flow and how Canada will continue to meet its obligations under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Ms. Minotti, I’d like to ask about environmental or energy conflicts on the Canadian side, especially as they relate to daily drinking water needs in the Great Lakes area. How do you deal with those kinds of problems, which could affect U.S.-based sources or vice versa? What we do affects drinking water sources in the U.S. You spoke earlier of lines of communication. Can you tell us about a situation that happened in the past? Can you tell us how you resolve a given situation?
Ms. Minotti: Thank you for the question.
[English]
When it comes to the Great Lakes and water quality, we have the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Canada and the U.S. are the signatories, and the implementation of the agreement is done by what was Environment and Climate Change Canada — part of it is now under the Canada Water Agency. They are responsible for working with our U.S. counterparts at the United States Environmental Protection Agency to implement the elements of that agreement to protect our drinking water. I think “swimmable, drinkable, fishable” is the phrase, and that’s the goal. We work very closely together on that.
That being said, in implementing that, I do go and observe the meetings. They meet twice a year. It’s called the Great Lakes Executive Committee meeting, which is another great example of bringing the cross-border cooperation to update about the work being done on both sides of the border in order to address these concerns under a number of annexes. If there are issues, it’s a forum to work things out. There are also opportunities for observers to bring other issues of concern to attention, but it may not always be necessarily worked out in that forum specifically. There are some issues raised where there’s concern over potential impacts to the Great Lakes, but sometimes it comes to us afterwards for us to look at and engage with our counterparts.
The interesting part of working in our division is there’s a long-standing history of a lot of these issues of concern. We don’t always agree, and a lot of times, it’s about managing some of the conflicts. Some issues we’re able to work through, and some we’re not, but the point is we’re able to find a way to compromise, work together and acknowledge concerns.
It’s hard to think of one example because there are many, but where the Great Lakes are concerned, particularly with respect to drinking water, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement — which has been updated to keep up with the changing times as well — it is a great example of our cooperation to work through issues of concern there.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I have a small point to raise on the subject. Do you expect problems to arise because responsibility for the funding has been transferred to Global Affairs? Do you think that decision could cause conflicts or problems?
Ms. Minotti: No, I don’t see any problem on my side.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I have a question before we wrap up. Congratulations, Mr. Cronin, on being made commissioner. I understand you’re here in your capacity with Global Affairs, but I could tell from the pride in your voice that you’re excited about your new job. I wanted to acknowledge that.
I also want to acknowledge this: If you look at the portfolios that you both manage on transboundary affairs with the United States, you wonder why we didn’t think of this before and why we didn’t do this before because it seems like such a great fit with the way that you obviously see your responsibilities.
We had witnesses here earlier; it was two commissioners from the commission who talked about how excited they were about this transition. When we asked them when they wanted it to happen — this was last month — they said ASAP, and, of course, the order-in-council is done. The transition, as you say, is a work-in-progress but, again, “ASAP” being the watchword.
We had people suggest that perhaps a helpful suggestion or a helpful recommendation from our committee might be that a Privy Council Office coordinator could be appointed to help guide or deal with the detail in this kind of difficult and complex transition. As you say, relationships are everything.
I wanted to get your comments — both of you, Mr. Cronin and Ms. Minotti — on if you think it would be helpful or whether that is, at this point in time, something that would not necessarily be a hindrance but also not necessary, perhaps.
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. It’s a good one and maybe one that we could take on advisement because the process does seem to be working in terms of the order-in-council being passed relatively quickly, as these things go. The conversations are going well between ourselves and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat. I think we’re always keeping colleagues at the Privy Council Office informed of how those things are going.
If there were ever a block, then I think it could be an idea to revisit. At the moment, it seems like things are going in the direction that we want them to go. The tone is very positive; I’m encouraged by that.
Ms. Minotti: I would agree with everything Mr. Cronin said. Again, I think it comes back to a lot of things we’ve already talked about: the importance of transparency and communication and the dialogue. As Mr. Cronin mentioned, the Privy Council Office is being kept in the loop; I’m sure if they’re concerned, they’ll let us know as well. I think the key is it’s a positive momentum. Everybody seems pleased right now with how it’s going.
To Senator Aucoin’s point, there will likely be bumps in the road, but I think there’s a recognition of that, and people are ready to work together and work through it. I think everybody is approaching it with the right frame of mind.
The Deputy Chair: What I’m hearing you say is, at this point, you don’t sense needing a champion from the Privy Council to carry this forward necessarily?
Ms. Minotti: I kind of feel like we have one, to be honest, because we’re working so closely with them.
The Deputy Chair: Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
Anyone else have a question?
Mr. Cronin: If I could — and I don’t want to take more time — I want to extend a big thank you to the committee for having us here today and giving us a chance to talk.
I have one thing to recommend, and I’ll put my hat on as commissioner. On the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, there is a fantastic documentary that was released last year, narrated by Oscar winner J.K. Simmons. It tells the story of the commission which is a story of resilience, scientific discovery, perseverance and making a difference for the economic interest — the cultural interest — of folks who live around the Great Lakes. I would love to put the director of communications in touch with the clerk, if the senators are interested. I’m happy to share a link for the screening. It really is a fantastic story, and it’s one that I’m very proud to be a part of. Thanks.
The Deputy Chair: How many episodes?
Mr. Cronin: It’s about 90 minutes.
Ms. Minotti: Just to add to what Mr. Cronin said on that, it was being picked up, I think, at the end of September at the Windsor International Film Festival. I just received confirmation from our embassy in Washington today that it will be screened at the end of March in Washington at the Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital.
The Deputy Chair: Wonderful. Thanks for passing that along. We’re definitely interested in looking into that.
Hearing no more questions or comments, I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee for being here. I understand that this is late, even for folks who work as hard as you do. I want to thank you for being so informative and leaving us with such a positive note about the future of this incredibly important commission. Again, congratulations to both of you for your new responsibilities, or extended responsibilities, to make this all work. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)