THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 7, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:32 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans, including maritime safety.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good evening. My name is Fabian Manning. I am a senator for Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the privilege to chair this meeting this evening. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Dhillon: Good evening. Baltej Dhillon, a senator from British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, but I’m sitting in for Senator Bev Busson.
Senator Ravalia: Welcome. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Welcome. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Today, the committee will be hearing from the following representatives of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission: Dr. Marc Gaden, Executive Secretary; and Gregory McClinchey, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you both for being here today. I understand that Dr. Gaden and Mr. McClinchey have some opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will have questions for you I’m sure. Dr. Gaden, you have the floor.
Marc Gaden, Executive Secretary, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: Good evening and thank you, Mr. Chair and senators, for having us back to the committee to appear today to talk about what has happened over the past year concerning the Canadian Section’s efforts to fix a flawed machinery of government interface with the Government of Canada. Your ongoing interest in this matter demonstrates your commitment to our efforts to implement the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries effectively.
Canada and the United States share the Great Lakes fishery, a binational treasure worth more than $7 billion annually to the people of our two nations. The fishery attracts millions of anglers, supports valuable commercial and charter fishing industries, is a mainstay for Indigenous peoples and is the cornerstone of a healthy and sustainable Great Lakes economy.
Operating through the convention, the commission facilitates successful cross-border cooperation that ensures our two nations work together to improve and perpetuate a sustainable fishery rather than simply harvesting a resource, as society did in the age of divided governance before we started to cooperate across borders. This is because Canada and the United States recognized decades ago that the best way to manage and sustain the fishery is through continuous, binational cooperation, and for 70 years, that has been our mission. It took decades to restore the Great Lakes and its fisheries to a healthier state.
Like many good news stories — and many aspects of the modern Canada-U.S. relationship — the commission works very well, but in a quiet way, and has often been taken for granted. This is why we are here today, at the behest of the Canadian Section, to share our worry that a flawed governance structure continues to risk past progress.
Commissioners see our most fundamental purpose as being to instill and maintain the sense of trust and cooperation that is necessary for our two nations to manage the fisheries in a fair and mutually beneficial way, and it is what brings us to the reason for appearing tonight, namely a piece of unfinished machinery of government business that we hope this committee will shine a spotlight on and encourage the Government of Canada to complete.
I will turn to my colleague Greg McClinchey to provide an overview of the problem.
Gregory McClinchey, Director, Policy and Legislative Affairs, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Last year, while this committee was considering this very issue, we received assurances from the government that the machinery of government functions governing the interface between Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or GLFC, would be transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, to Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, as we had been urging. This highly welcome news was communicated by GAC widely on both sides of the border to parliamentary committees and among members of the U.S. Congress. However, as noted in the Canadian Section letter that we have provided to the clerk, the full transfer of our governance turned out to be only partially accurate.
About the time the committee put down its tools, we were told that the commission’s machinery of government, or MOG, would indeed be transferred to GAC except for the sea lamprey control budgeting, which would remain with DFO. Far from solving the governance problem, we are today deeply worried that the failure to make this MOG change is a move that will not only complicate the governance, but it also undermines GAC’s ability to ensure the implementation of the convention, and it stymies the commissioners’ ability to carry out their duties. Canadian commissioners contend that a failure to transfer all resources to GAC, along with the rest of the MOG, leaves a fundamental problem unresolved and makes for an unnecessarily complicated structure with no real benefits.
The first problem is, as per the terms of the convention, the commission is responsible for implementing the sea lamprey control program. Article VI of the convention allows commissioners to determine who it engages with to deliver that program. DFO has misinterpreted Article VI to assume the commission “must” employ DFO to deliver the program on the commission’s behalf. But Article VI says nothing of the sort. It only says that the commission should use existing institutions, public or private, so long as it is feasible to do so.
This misinterpretation further mutated when both the budget and the machinery of government for the commission was placed fully in the hands of DFO previously. So not only was DFO self‑selecting as the control agent, contrary to the powers granted to the commission under Article VI, but DFO also had complete control over the budget and governance. This also led to a violation of Article IV of the convention, which clearly stipulates that the commissioners determine the commission’s program, not anyone else.
By having control over the budget, by having DFO officials sit on the commission and by misinterpreting Article VI as saying the commission must use DFO, DFO routinely and unilaterally determined Canada’s contribution and the use of the funds, not the commissioners. That conflict of interest led to untenable governance and was the reason why Canada slipped far behind in meeting its financial obligations. It also strained the relationship with the United States.
Our programming is not necessarily tethered geographically, you see, which is why the operations are conducted under the authority of the convention and not under legislation such as the Fisheries Act. I would like to stress that the commission’s arrangement is subject to a vote of the commission and is done on a contractual basis, accompanied by an MOA and a work plan in Canada. These terms are renegotiated on an annual basis, and it is not automatic, nor is it predetermined. We happen to very much value the work of the DFO field agents, who are some of the best in the world, and we value this partnership, but the execution of Article VI is at the commission’s decision.
As a result of our recent efforts, and as mentioned previously, this situation was partially changed by having the MOG for the GLFC transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to Global Affairs Canada, except for the sea lamprey control program funding, which currently remains with DFO.
In conversations with legislators, many instantly recognize that problem. It’s obvious that DFO does not have, as its first instinct, concerns about the impacts of their actions on the bilateral Canada-U.S. relationship the same way that GAC would have. Leaving them to oversee commission resources while also acting as a control agent for the commission is a recipe for long‑term challenges.
Also, history matters. Simply stated, if one does not adhere to Article VI, then Article IV of the convention is also at risk. Historically, the violation of those articles led to Canada not meeting its financial obligations and to considerable strain in the relationship. It was as recent 2022 that DFO violated Article IV, and it was only a year ago that a DFO witness, in response to Senator Deacon’s questions, perpetuated the historical misinterpretation of Article VI.
None of this is ancient history, and the incomplete MOG, along with continued sentiments about the commission at DFO, give the Canadian Section cause for concern. The Canadian Section feels strongly that keeping an important part of the MOG with DFO is unwise and undermines the trust.
I will turn it over to Dr. Gaden for some brief concluding remarks.
Mr. Gaden: Thank you.
With those aspects of the MOG that have already been transferred to GAC — for example, the appointment process for Canadian commissioners — we’ve seen an immediate and welcome improvement. GAC officials have been a pleasure to work with. They have been courteous and respectful to us. They have kept me and my staff informed about the process to manage the incomplete MOG change. They have worked hard to use the commission as a way to enhance the Canada-U.S. relationship. It is clear that GAC and the commission work well together.
Senators, I have spent a considerable part of my career — more than 30 years — working at the commission. I am passionate about both fish and the value that the fishery brings to sport, commercial and Indigenous fishers. Above all, I remain in awe of the strength of the convention that has, for more than 70 years, brought our two nations together in the spirit of friendship and collegiality to preserve and protect the fishery.
Budget 2022 had just promised that the Government of Canada’s funding commitment would be fully met for the first time in decades. Everyone was universally happy that the commission was to be fully funded by both Canada and the U.S. In 2022, as Mr. McClinchey mentioned, DFO again violated Article IV and reallocated a considerable portion of the commission’s budget to other priorities. That was too much for our commissioners, and for the first time in our history, one section refused to meet with the other. Senators, that was the darkest day of my time with the commission, and I don’t want to see that happen again.
Through our relationship with GAC, we have managed to restore much of that lost goodwill, but a failure to fully execute the structural changes, as the Canadian Section and some of the U.S. have observed, makes GAC’s job harder and leaves Canada vulnerable to slipping back into the past practices that led us to where we were.
I suggest this is a unique time in Canada-U.S. relations. We have been, and continue to be, a shining example of how mutually beneficial American and Canadian cooperation can be.
The easiest solution to the problems we have identified is to simply to transfer the entire MOG from DFO to GAC, as former prime minister Trudeau pledged. As an added benefit, this will cost the Government of Canada absolutely nothing.
In closing, our ask is simple: On behalf of the Canadian Section, we are asking you to press the Government of Canada to fully transition the commission’s MOG and budget portfolio from DFO to GAC, as promised. That will honour the convention, preserve the work and verify the essential trust relationship. We look forward to working with GAC as a MOG source that is as interested in our success as the senators around this table seem to be.
Thank you so much. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you both for your opening remarks.
Before we go to Senator Deacon, who will ask our first question, our witnesses have a document that we can distribute, but it is in English only. I’m not sure if we have enough for everybody. If we don’t, they will provide more in short order. Is it okay with senators if we distribute as many of these as we have here today? If someone doesn’t have it, we will pass it on. Is that alright? If we need translation, you can give me a call. Let me know which senator does not get one, just in case, and I will make sure that you do.
Senator Poirier: This is the letter they sent this week?
The Chair: No, this is a document.
Senator Poirier: So this is additional?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Gerba: May I make a comment? Mr. Chair, can I just ask that, for the next meetings, we ask the witnesses to take time to translate all documents so that I can read them also, please?
The Chair: Yes, we will make sure of that.
We will need a few more copies since a few members are not here this evening. When we finish up, I will let you know how many we need.
Senator C. Deacon: I am really confused. We met with GAC, and I think we all felt comfortable that they knew the genesis of the problem. They knew the fact that $70 million or $75 million was arbitrarily withheld over about a 20-year period by DFO from the funds that had already been appropriated by the Government of Canada to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission through that department. Why it didn’t go straight through to the GLFC is a detail I don’t quite understand.
It doesn’t seem to be a pattern. We can look at the amount that was arbitrarily withheld. It just seemed to be what DFO wanted to withhold for whatever reason. You are their customer; they work for you. W ho made the decision? How did this change from when we last met to now? Where did that problem originate? I am flabbergasted.
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for the question.
We are flabbergasted as well. About a year ago, we were sitting here quite pleased with the decision of the government to move it over. We learned shortly after the hearing that that isn’t what happened in its entirety —
Senator C. Deacon: — a sea lamprey bite my hand, just to really feel —
Mr. Gaden: In celebration. Yes, exactly.
I don’t have an answer to the question, because we are not privy to why and the rationale behind that. However, it is our contention that, in order to solve the problem that got us into the mess that we were in, the move needs to be complete. It needs to be budget and MOG —
Senator C. Deacon: We asked GAC officials about that expressly and received very clear answers. Where do you think the decision was made? It must have been made at the PCO or at GAC, I would think. What happened?
Mr. Gaden: At the time this decision was made, we were not notified not only at the time but also of the rationale behind it. I actually have no idea. We have had some meetings with the PCO and PMO to discuss the matter since, and it’s unclear exactly what the rationale behind that decision was. I’m afraid I don’t have a good answer for you because we are as much in the dark as you. I will tell you that our Canadian Section firmly believes that, unless and until this is moved to GAC in its entirety, we are at grave risk of going back to where we were when —
Senator C. Deacon: There can be no trust.
If you can remind me: We were told that there was an official at PCO who was very aware of the past challenges and understood why this needed to be moved in totality to GAC. There was assurance all round that that was going to be happening.
I can’t believe there was a political decision made when so much else was going on in the Government of Canada and the change of government and whatever else. This must have been a bureaucratic decision that went against the political commitment of Prime Minister Trudeau before he left Parliament.
Mr. McClinchey: Any answer I give would be us supposing what it is, because we don’t actually know.
Senator C. Deacon: I am just trying to get to where we can do our investigation.
Mr. McClinchey: We have been given a couple of reasons that may conflict with each other as to why it hasn’t been done in its entirety. There has been discussion that has been shared with us verbally that there was a political decision made and then PCO discovered that such a change would not be in keeping with the Financial Administration Act. Then we had a communiqué from the then Prime Minister’s office suggesting that it is, in fact, not the Financial Administration Act but perhaps it is the founding legislation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act. We did seek legal counsel to get some clarity. Again, I offer that we don’t know exactly. We did meet with the PCO recently and asked that exact question: What is the reason? Can you please explain to us why the machinery has not been transferred fully? We are awaiting that answer. Hopefully, we will have an answer, but at this point, we can’t give it to you other than say there have been a couple of reasons that have been expressed.
Our counsel would suggest that both of those reasons would be dispelled in the fact that — to give an example, there wouldn’t be a problem with the founding legislation at the Department of Foreign Affairs because they are not running a program. They are administering a treaty in exactly the same way that the International Joint Commission treaty is managed through Global Affairs, as is the Roosevelt Campobello commission, and at no point, to my knowledge, did anyone suggest that GAC would need to have the authority to manage water levels. They are simply managing the treaty. If our activities are carried out under the guise of the treaty, then we would suggest the same would be the case.
As Dr. Gaden mentioned, we are in the dark as to the precise reason for the lack of change.
Mr. Gaden: What is particularly puzzling to us is that with everyone we have met with, both on the bureaucratic and the political side, no one is making the case for keeping this as it is. In other words, it seems that everyone is as puzzled as you about why this strange divided MOG and budgeting is the way it is. If this committee were to ask these questions and try and get to the bottom of that, you might get the same answer. Maybe the conclusion would be that the simplest, no-cost solution to this would be to move it to GAC in its entirety.
Senator C. Deacon: I think that’s what we all thought, those of us who were here, and this is new to the now-majority of this committee. When we met with the DFO finance folks — I know in seven years, I have never had a situation where I was more frustrated and, honestly, angry with the lack of factual-based, evidence-based answers that we were getting as to why this has occurred over 20 years. We got very clear answers from GAC that this whole thing was moving over, because we were very clear about our concerns. I am bafflegabbed.
The Chair: Some things change, and some things stay the same.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
I want to place on the record that I did raise this issue at the Foreign Affairs Committee with Minister LeBlanc, who was unaware that this was happening. He assured me that he and his officials would be reviewing this and that there would be a response coming forthwith. I have not had a response to date, but if and when that happens, I will assure you that we will be in touch with you, and members of the committee will be given that information as well.
Just to follow up, given this current turbulence, to what extent has the functionality been impacted? We read about the invasive carp and control and so on. If there is even subtle tension, does it actually impact the functionality of your current relationship?
Mr. Gaden: It certainly does, senator, and I appreciate the question.
The role of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission with commissioners from both countries is to try to transcend that so that challenges and changes in the relationship between the U.S. and Canada will be maintained, at least in the commission that we work with.
On the budgetary side of it, both Canada and the United States are actually meeting their funding obligations for the first time in decades with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I am pleased to say that in the United States, where the current administration is putting international organizations like ours under particular scrutiny, we did very well in the President’s budget that he submitted, and Congress has provided full funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. What that tells me is that both the administrations in Canada and the United States are strongly supporting this commission, and I think it is because of the work that we do day in and day out to create that working arrangement between the two countries that is so functional.
We had a bit of hiccup at the beginning of this administration where some of the personnel that we hired on the U.S. side to carry out lamprey control were in jeopardy because of the hiring issues that were going on and the hiring freezes, but we were able to demonstrate the value of the work that we do to the Great Lakes and the economy in both Canada and the United States and those positions were restored, and we carried on with the control season.
In summary, the funding is there from both countries meeting their obligations. The support is there. I like to believe that we do our jobs and we hold it together. In the purpose of the Great Lakes and managing that fishery, we are going to do our jobs. If I say so myself, we do it very well, and we try and keep that relationship strong.
Mr. McClinchey: It is also important to note that, as Dr. Gaden mentioned, we are working very well with Global Affairs Canada. That transition has been very positive and has allowed some of these challenges to be overcome.
The thing that I think our commissioners are most concerned about is the history of this has been a bit troubling, and the concern is that, right now, there are a lot of folks watching and things are working very well. How do we future-proof it to make sure that this vital service, the treaty mandate items that we are looking after — we deal with several items beyond lamprey control — how do we make certain that we never fall back and that never falls back into the behaviour that was there before and that we don’t deal with these challenges again. The concern is really forward-looking as opposed to looking back. Even the GAC witnesses at the last hearing made a very clear statement that the change was being made and that there is good reason for that change. We want to make sure that the future is secure.
Senator Surette: Fortunately, we have members who were here prior to and know some of the story. I am new to the committee, and I am trying to understand fully what is going on. I think I fully understand what Senator Deacon was referring to. Why it didn’t happen is not clear, but we will leave that the way it is.
Just so that I fully understand, this is just the last portion of the funding that you are waiting for from the Canadian government. If I read it properly, it is 31%, and the U.S. is 69% of just the lamprey control program. Is that correct? Which means that all the other functionalities are working. The appointments to your commission and the other funding to operate the commission, that’s all there. There is just this last piece missing?
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for the question, senator.
Mr. Chair, the senator is correct. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission receives an appropriation from Parliament to carry out the treaty, the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, and we do have many functions, lamprey control being one, and that is the largest part of our budget.
The problem we got into is that the whole portfolio in the past was held by DFO, and also the machinery of government part, in an agency that was not centred on the Canada-U.S. relationship but more on carrying out domestic programs. Since they had entire control over the budget, there was also a situation where the commissioners under the treaty had the authority to determine the program, but DFO was doing that because they had the money and they were determining what they would keep and what they would send on to us. They didn’t request enough to fulfill all elements of the treaty anyway. That’s why we needed to move it over to Global Affairs.
The problem where we land right now is that the move to Global Affairs Canada was only partial, and the portion of the budget that’s still held by DFO is a significant portion and it still allows them to potentially make decisions on how that money is spent. Article IV is very clear that that’s the commissioner’s decision. If there’s any chance that they can do that, then there’s a violation of Article IV, and that’s where we got into the Canada-U.S. tensions, chronic underfunding by Canada.
Our contention, the contention of the Canadian section, is the best way to do this is both budget and machinery of government to be in the one agency, Global Affairs Canada, which cares about the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Senator Surette: I think I understand that correctly now. When you say that it’s not going to cost government anything, that means the money is already at DFO and just has to be transferred over. That’s why it’s not costing government anything?
Mr. Gaden: Yes, it wouldn’t cost the government anything because they’re currently making the required contribution to match what the United States is contributing from a budgetary perspective. It doesn’t cost the government anything in effort or goodwill or anything to move the entire machinery of government to Global Affairs and the entire budget to Global Affairs.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I’m fairly new to the committee. I understand that the change of governance is a serious problem and you would like to go back to Global Affairs Canada. To follow up on what Senator Deacon said, what should be done to make that happen? That is my first question. What can we do here at the committee to make that happen?
My second question concerns the summit held last weekend in Quebec City between the premiers and the governors of American states in the Great Lakes region. The summit emphasized the importance of stronger cross-border cooperation and the alignment of environmental policies. What impact did the summit have on your work? Were you involved in the summit?
[English]
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for the question, senator.
We had both our chairman and our vice-chairman attend that summit in Quebec this past weekend. You’re right that it was a celebration of Canada-U.S. relations. I was not able to attend. Mr. McClinchey was there, so I can let him speak firsthand on that.
Something is very important to stress, and that is that for organizations like the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, it’s our job to maintain that and, in this case, to manage the fisheries, to control invasive species, to do the science that we need to do, to serve as the foundation for decisions that are made throughout the Great Lakes Basin, and also to help do the day-to-day work of ensuring that the eight Great Lakes states and the Indigenous nations and the Province of Ontario work together. We always talk about Canada and the U.S. working together; in freshwater, it’s also a subnational responsibility. We are charged as a binational commission of still helping all of the entities work together in a consensus-based way so that we’re all marching in the same direction.
I did hear that summit this past weekend was quite a success, and maybe I’ll turn to Mr. McClinchey, who was actually there. He had the fortune of being there, but I couldn’t make it.
Mr. McClinchey: I was there. It was a wonderful summit with a lot of positive information, but the cornerstone of what was discussed was that partnership element and that it’s a sticks‑in-a-bundle approach that we take.
I will say that for 70 years, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has adopted that mantra. We are an organization of partnerships. If you read the treaty, you’ll find very quickly that the treaty doesn’t give us authority to demand things but rather give us the responsibility to cooperatively and on a voluntary and consensus basis secure things and to show folks that there is a better way of managing on an ecosystem-wide basis. That’s at the heart of what we do, whether it’s in our science program or the lamprey program and so on. This is why this particular problem is so damaging to the work we’re doing, because it calls into question those relationships.
The senator asked the question directly: What can this body do? With that as context, I would hope this committee would understand that we would ask you to urge the government in the strongest possible terms to simply do what it said it would do, to make that change and to put right this governance. What we do is so reliant on clean, conflict-free, effective, efficient governance because then we can really work and concentrate on what is our primary responsibilities, things like cross-border collaboration, sea lamprey control and freshwater science perpetuation.
Senator Dhillon: I am also one of the newbies on this thing, and I wasn’t told ahead of time that I needed to be bitten by a lamprey, so that’s all news to me. That might have changed my decision.
I’m also trying to wrap my head around this. There’s an order‑in-council that was passed. You spoke about Article VI being misinterpreted. Maybe you can help me understand what part of that article is being misinterpreted.
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for the question, senator.
Article VI of the convention says — and I’m paraphrasing this — that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is encouraged to work with existing agencies, public or private, in carrying out its duties whenever it’s feasible to do so. The intent of that article by the people who wrote the treaty was to try their best not to create new bureaucracies or new agencies but rather to have the fishery commission use existing agencies in carrying out its programs. That means that the fishery commissioners have the discretion to determine who they choose to carry out its program.
In the United States, for example, in carrying out lamprey control, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission selected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to do that; in carrying out part of its science mandate, they selected the U.S. Geological Survey. To carry out science, we selected and we work with universities throughout the Great Lakes Basin. We work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on infrastructure, and I could go on, just myriad numbers of agencies in the United States, and the same in Canada, universities and other agencies as necessary.
The commission selected the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to Article VI, to carry out the sea lamprey control program, and they’ve done a tremendous job in doing that. I’m extremely proud of the people at DFO who do the field work. They do it with great skill. They saved the Great Lakes fishery, and they’re great to work with.
The problem is that DFO over time misinterpreted Article VI to say that the fishery commission must select them to carry out lamprey control because of the fact that DFO confused it with its domestic mandate to carry out other programs. That metastasized over time when they got the budget as well. Now, both the contractor and the contractee were the same, and that is what led to that deficit in contributions over time.
When you couple that with Article IV of the convention, which says that the commissioners determine the program — nobody else — the commissioners determine that. DFO thinks they had the right to carry that out under Article VI and they had the budget to do it, and they were making decisions that were commissioner decision, and the money that parliament allocated for the commission was not used for the commission’s program.
Senator Dhillon: From what I’ve understood from my friends here, this was all talked about last year. That was exactly the issue that you were trying to get at. I guess I’m back to that space and that confusion around it. Did GAC ultimately relinquish their responsibility, or did DFO usurp that power and go back to how things were in the past?
Mr. Gaden: That’s a great question, senator. We’re not sure. This was several decades ago when the original sin occurred, when DFO acquired the full portfolio, both the machinery of government and the budget part of it.
More recently, about a year ago — again, before this committee, you’re exactly right — we came before you, and we were very pleased with the government’s announcement to move it over to GAC entirely. In the defence of the witnesses that you had from GAC — and DFO, for that matter — everybody thought that that’s exactly what was going to happen. It was only several weeks after the hearing of about a year ago when we learned that’s not what happened. I think the people at Global Affairs were as surprised as we were to learn that.
We were extremely disappointed because we were under the impression that this move was going to happen in its entirety. It would have solved the problem of both the machinery of government and the budgeting. We’re left now in this very strange limbo where DFO and GAC need to contort themselves around some sort of governance arrangement that resembles one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions just to ensure we get our money and the convention is carried out. We come before the committee to say that the simplest solution is to move the entire portfolio, budget and all, to Global Affairs Canada so our commissioners can get on with their work in carrying out the convention as intended.
Senator Dhillon: That’s what the order-in-council did.
Mr. Gaden: So we were led to believe, yes.
To answer your question and to continue on with Senator Deacon’s first question, we just don’t know why it didn’t happen in its entirety. With everyone that we talked to, nobody is able to give us an answer about why the current situation is a good thing.
Mr. McClinchey: If I may add, I think it’s important to note, as Dr. Gaden pointed out, that we’re not talking about bad people. That’s not what this is about.
The work that was done prior to the commission was being done kind of independently by all of the eight Great Lakes states, the Province of Ontario and all the other folks and agencies that were involved, but it was being done in a way that history has now dubbed divided governance. Everybody was trying to do their best, but nobody was coordinating, nobody was talking to each other and nobody was being informed. The commission’s strength and the success that we’ve brought to the table is that we can facilitate and have facilitated a process that didn’t exist anywhere else. Basically, everybody came to realize we’re all in the same boat, so let’s start rowing in the same direction. That’s what took place, and success followed.
I’m not suggesting that anyone is saying this will happen, but if we were to take away that coordinating function — because the part that DFO is doing is one piece of a much larger puzzle. That’s why this isn’t about us saying we want that from a semantics perspective. We want it because it’s the piece that allows us to see the whole picture and move those things, whether it’s designing the Sea Lamprey Control Program based on science — we have to fight lamprey where they are. We can’t guess and suppose; we have to use science. We have to set environmental priorities with the lake committees, all of those bits to the program, and that requires coordination. We can’t fall back. The Canadian Section is genuinely worried that if this is allowed to continue — and that future-proofing is not assured — then at some point we’ll simply fall back into the behaviour that led to the divided governance and lack of success on the Great Lakes in the first place.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: I’m another new member of the committee, so I’m trying to wrap my head around it like everybody else. I understand the crux of the issue and of your request here this evening, the impact that this lack of transferring 100% is having on the work of the commission and the convention and all that. I’m just trying to wrap my head around who manages the actual boots on the ground that look after the day-to-day operations of the Sea Lamprey Control Program? Who physically does this on a daily basis? Are they employees of DFO? Are they employees of the commission? Are they private contractors? Who is doing this work? I’m still trying to understand the reasoning. Someone at DFO has a reason that they’re holding back this money. Is it because it’s their share of the work that they’re doing, or is it just because they’re putting this money somewhere else and don’t want to release it to the commission? I’m trying to get a better sense of that, please.
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for the question.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, has the responsibility to carry out the Sea Lamprey Control Program. As I answered earlier, Article VI says that, if it’s feasible, choose an existing agency to do that.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission actively manages the formulation of the Sea Lamprey Control Program. We facilitate deciding where sea lamprey control is to take place — in other words, in which streams. We facilitate a process that gets people out in the field to do the assessment work and the work that is needed to determine which streams to treat and maybe where to put a physical barrier. In the United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the boots-on-the-ground part. In Canada, it’s the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
What’s important as well is these two agencies, through our facilitation and the active management of that, work together to create a binational, border-blind Sea Lamprey Control Program that looks after the whole Great Lakes Basin, not just, say, Canada’s portion or even Michigan’s portion of that. That’s where we got ourselves into trouble before the treaty. Each jurisdiction was trying to do its own thing, and the sum of the parts did not lead to success there. That’s why they put it in a binational commission where we can very easily move resources around. If we need to do more in Canada, we would be able to do more in Canada just because of the way the lampreys are this year. If we need to do more in the United States, the Canadian crews can come over and assist the Fish and Wildlife Service to do it. It needed to be a binational program because, if it wasn’t, each of the jurisdictions doing its own thing would never lead to success, and that’s why the Fishery Commission does what it does.
If we decided tomorrow that it would be more efficient or more feasible to have somebody else carry out lamprey control, our commissioners have the authority to make that decision.
Senator Boudreau: That’s the point I’m getting at. I understand. If tomorrow the commission wanted to make that decision, they have the power to do so, but if it’s currently DFO doing that physical work on the ground, on the water, wherever this gets done, are they just advocating for their costs for the service that they’re providing?
Mr. Gaden: That’s correct, yes. In our assessment, if the commission were to make that decision tomorrow, yet the money was held in that agency potentially at the discretion of the people in that agency, it would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for our commissioners to make that decision.
Also, the violation of Article IV of the treaty, which is where the commissioners determine the program — in other words, the expenditure of the funds that are provided by Canada and the United States — it makes it even more difficult for our commissioners to do that if the money is held by that department.
As Mr. McClinchey said, history matters, and that’s exactly what happened. That’s what got us into the mess in the first place. The easiest thing to do is to stay true to the treaty, give the commissioners the authority to formulate and implement the program as intended — and, by the way, that has been successful over many decades. We don’t want to go back to where there was underfunding, a lack of meeting the commitments and some pretty serious tension between the two sections because of that.
Mr. McClinchey: There is a nuance as well that’s worth mentioning. The work being done by any of the service providers — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DFO, whomever — is covered, for the most part, by contract, by an MLA. In the documents passed around, you’ll see the top sheet of that contract. This is an agreement that our executive secretary negotiates with the department each year. It includes a work plan. It includes full costing. It includes all of those kinds of things, the resources that are required. This isn’t a willy-nilly approach. It’s a structured approach that is the end result of a process that takes several months to complete.
Sea lamprey control ends for the 2025 season later this month or early next month, depending on some weather conditions. The process of designing the 2026 program begins immediately so that, by late winter or early spring, the executive secretary on behalf of the commissioners and the department can sign that agreement and get ready to deploy. Nobody is doing the work off on their own. It is being overseen through those contractual relationships.
The challenge here is that Article VI says that is the commission’s responsibility, and this is a sizeable chunk. Sea lamprey control is a sizeable part of the commission’s operations, so the current arrangement where a portion of the budget remains in the reference levels of DFO is basically setting up a system that presupposes who the service provider would be when that’s not what the convention says, and that’s really the crux of what we’re beginning to address here.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here.
I’m not new to the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, but I’m new after quite a few years off Fisheries and Oceans and am back for the first time today. Like everybody else, I’m trying to understand, and I appreciate the questions and answers we’ve gotten.
From my understanding of the information that I received, as of October 2024, the transfer of the responsibility was given to Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, and not more than two months later, in December, the commission finds out that GAC is not going to be getting the complete money and DFO got it, so obviously something happened in those two months. Who made that decision? How did it happen? Why are you not getting answers? Obviously, it’s because DFO doesn’t want to give it over, or is it somebody else? Who made the decision to give it to you, and who made the decision to tell you that you can’t get it?
Mr. Gaden: I thank the senator for that question.
We don’t know ultimately why that decision was made. We have discussed it with the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, we’ve discussed it with elected officials and we’ve discussed with bureaucrats in the agencies. The answers we’ve received, as Mr. McClinchey noted, were varied in the rationale behind it, but none of it made sense. Nobody we talked to is advocating or making the case for keeping this divided arrangement going. Everyone we talked to acknowledges that the best solution is the simplest solution, and that is to move the entire portfolio over to Global Affairs Canada. But as for why it happened, we don’t know.
I will say that a year ago, during this committee’s hearings, several of the senators asked questions about whether I, as the executive secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Canadian Section members were being kept informed about how the move was going. In other words, we were very concerned that decisions would be made without taking our interests and our needs into account. I am happy to report that Global Affairs has been very good about communications and about keeping us informed about this. They were as surprised as we were about the fact that the whole machinery and the budget were not moved over. But as for why that’s the case, none of us have received a good answer for that, and I would respectfully urge the committee to be asking those questions of the powers that be, because we’d like to know as much as you do.
Senator Poirier: Where do you recommend we start? Who do we start with if nobody wants to give any answers, guidance or explanation? Where do we start?
Mr. McClinchey: Thank you for the question. I’ll start with what we know and build to the answer.
What we know is that in September of last year, 2024 — and it’s in the blue document — there was a letter that came to our commissioners, Canadian and U.S., from the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying that this change would occur. After that, there were letters circulated, for example, signed by both the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the House Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade saying the change would occur. Our commissioners were briefed in person by Global Affairs officials, as was this committee. The point of all of that is that it was made very clear to the commission and to all who had weighed in on that subject that the change was coming, and the wording used here at this committee was — don’t quote me on this — the machinery of government would be fully transitioned to Global Affairs. We were told then that officials, and this is verbal, both at Global Affairs and DFO were, in earnest, working on making that happen.
At some point, they were told that they had to come up with a different strategy. Now, as Dr. Gaden has suggested, we don’t know specifically who did that. However, when you ask the question, “Who made the decision to make the change?” we were advised it was made by order-in-council, so by cabinet. To be clear, I don’t know, but there are only so many sources that could then make some decisions to go in a different direction.
We did hypothesize, if I can say that, that perhaps PCO had a concern or had a rationale. We don’t know that, but we did meet with PCO a couple weeks ago and simply asked them the question. We’re awaiting their answer. It was only two weeks ago. We did ask the question. We’re currently proceeding on the premise there’s something in the machinery of government directorate at PCO that we need to sort out, and the first question is that we’d like to better understand the nature of the problem. The two possible problems that we’ve been told are at play are both ones that our counsel advised are not insurmountable. These can be dealt with, but until we know for sure, we can’t address the problem. We’re in the dark.
Senator Poirier: Have you contacted or tried to meet with the fisheries committee on the House side?
Mr. McClinchey: I believe it was the spring of last year — I may be wrong on the date there — the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the previous parliament did a study on the subject and released a report where they made a number of recommendations. At the heart of it, they suggested the change we made. We had many conversations with the members of that committee but have not yet been able to reengage the new committee.
Senator Poirier: Since you’ve been told you’re not getting all the money and part of it is going to DFO, you’ve not met with —
Mr. McClinchey: We’ve met with individual members, but not the committee formally.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you both for coming. I’m part of the majority here, being a new senator sitting in this great committee, so I’m happy to be here.
I probably know the answer to this question, but I appreciate the questions and answers being provided and this unique situation you find yourself in, which seems to be on the Canadian side of the ledger here. I can only imagine what it takes when you’re trying to develop a relationship with another country and with multiple stakeholders and players to make this fully operational and functional and actually work.
What I’m thinking is that, within the convention or the treaty itself, there’s no mechanism within that document that you can rely on. I imagine it would have been relied on to try to get you where you need to go. Is that the case?
Mr. McClinchey: Correct.
Senator Prosper: I figured that. I just feel for the situation you’re in.
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for those comments.
I would just say that the very existence of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission came about after many, many decades of Canada and the U.S. not working together across borders. As you might imagine in the freshwater fishery of the Great Lakes, the fisheries suffered tremendously. The history of this is a very sad tale, and we don’t have a long history of working together across borders.
There were two failed treaties between the Canada and the U.S., one in 1908 and one in 1946, that attempted to create some sort of mechanism to work across borders, and they failed for a number of reasons, but one of which that was neither country was on the same page when it came to the appetite for regulating, and then there was no science on which to base the decisions.
The treaty that succeeded in 1954, that we worked for, succeeded because the lamprey posed an existential threat. It was an invasive species to the fishery. It was no longer feasible to avoid decision making by claiming there was no science. In other words, they wanted the two countries to invest in science to do something about it, and it was no longer feasible for each of the jurisdictions to do their own thing. Think Michigan and Ontario each kind of going their own way. Our whole existence it is to maintain the Canada-U.S. relationship, to create a mechanism where two countries on a day-to-day basis can work together in cooperation, in friendship and toward a shared goal of a fishery sustainable for the people of both countries.
That is the reason why legislators in Canada and legislators in the United States come together and talk about this through the Canada-U.S. Inter-parliamentary Group. It is the reason why U.S. legislators would become concerned if Canada is not funding the fishery commission at the level that they needed to, which was the case prior to Budget 2022. It was the reason many U.S. legislators also noted that strange relationship in terms of the budgeting and the machinery of government in Canada that led to that chronic underfunding.
Both countries do care very much about the working relationship, and they use our commission to do that. Both countries would also be very concerned when there are structural flaws which might lead to one country or the other not meeting its obligations.
Senator Prosper: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McClinchey: When this committee studied this subject last year — and he is not here, but I would quote Senator Cuzner — he made a remark about two things. First, he referred to the issue as a bit of a stone in the shoe. Most senators might agree that this is not the best time to have a stone in the shoe with respect to the Canada-U.S. relationship.
He also said that a promise made is a debt unpaid. That stood out in my head, because that’s really what this is about. It’s a trust matter. There are lots of functional and mechanical reasons why this matters, and there are lots of historical reasons why this matters, but perhaps the easiest thing in the here and now is to recall that Canada said it would make this change. Canada told U.S. partners that it would make this change because it felt, obviously, at the time, that a change was required.
We have been working in earnest. The commissioners have been working in earnest. It is also fair to say that officials at GAC have been working in earnest to make these changes because it is something that matters to the Canada-U.S. relationship. There have been times throughout history when the Canada-U.S. relationship has been fraught. It is worth noting that the way the commission is structured, we can do absolutely nothing on coordination, science, and lamprey control unless the decision is, by our commissioners — four Canadian, four Americans — unanimous. Despite any strained relationships that may or may not from time to time exist with the Canada-U.S. relationship, it is our commission’s job to make sure the Great Lakes are looked after in a collaborative, voluntary — sounds corny — caring manner. We and our commissioners don’t want anything that would put this at risk. That is perhaps what this is.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you for that last bit, Mr. McClinchey. This is about a relationship and maintaining a shared resource where there is no fence in the middle. We have to do it collaboratively, and if we don’t do it collaboratively, then we don’t do it successfully.
We heard great things about the DFO personnel on the water, the ones doing the work. I got a really good feeling from all of that testimony and all of the comments around that. The problem seems to be at 200 Kent Street. It seems to be at DFO itself, in the administration of that organization. The only thing that makes sense here, based on what we heard, is that there was someone convinced at PCO that there was some sort of mechanical problem that allowed DFO to keep some of the budget, because this goes against the commitment of the Prime Minister. It goes against what GAC felt was going to be happening and what they said to us was going to be happening.
It makes no sense to have your customer — sorry, you are the customer. You are being served. They are your vendor, and they have control over your budget that you are paying them. If they don’t deliver, they still can get paid. There is no commitment to quality. They don’t have to perform as an organization. They still get paid because they have control over the money. There is no logic to what we are hearing from you.
I would love all of the new members of the committee to hear the finance people that we had in from DFO trying to explain why $70 million was reappropriated by DFO over a 20-year period from our commitment to the United States. I went four rounds of questions in that. I guess I put up my hand for five but it felt like a dozen. There was no logic to it. I will get to a question, I promise you. A good finance person will explain a complicated thing in a simple way. When somebody explains a simple thing in a complicated way, you smell trouble. Right? In business, you smell trouble. Have I missed anything here in my summation? That’s my question.
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for that summation, senator. I think that your summary rings true. The way that you’ve described it is an accurate description of how we got to where we are and why there was that problem which especially manifested itself in how Budget 2022 was allocated or not allocated, to be more precise.
That should underscore the Canadian Section’s plea to the committee to do what it can to communicate the need to move this over entirely to Global Affairs Canada, as the government had intended.
Senator C. Deacon: There is simply no reason why any of this should have happened and we ended up where we ended up right now. The whole purpose was to not end up here. It was to get a permanent solution. We do not have that, so why was anything done?
Mr. Gaden: Yes, we agree.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I would like to come back to research collaboration and scientific partnerships, because concerns were recently raised about freedom of research in Canada-U.S. collaborations.
According to a March 2025 article in La Presse, several Canadian researchers funded by American agencies are criticizing the ideologically driven questionnaires imposed on them. This practice raises concerns about the continuity and independence of cross-border scientific research.
What impact does that have on the commission’s mandate? This question is for both Mr. McClinchey and Mr. Gaden. My question is in two parts. Given what we are discussing here, do you have the resources, data and scientific partnerships required to reach your objectives?
[English]
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for those excellent questions. They do get to the heart of a major part of the commission’s mandate under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, and that is to formulate and execute a binational science program. For more than 70 years, we have conducted, facilitated and supported that research with the intent of having it done in a way that is useable to the management agencies and to the people who will put it to use for the benefit of sustaining and improving the Great Lakes fisheries.
To answer your two questions, one of which has to do with the impact of the current administration on the mandate and the second of which is about the research and scientific partnerships, I will point out that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is an independent, binational and technically non-government agency that receives its funding from the government, but we work under a binational treaty. Our commissioners, under the convention, have the complete authority to determine the scientific program and how the resources are spent. That’s by design. It is to make it so that our commissioners can focus on what needs to be done to sustain and protect the Great Lakes fishery.
The problem that we had leading up to Budget 2022 was that DFO was in charge of the budget and also in charge of the lamprey program. They were asking only for the funds that were needed to carry out lamprey control — in other words, only what they would keep. That meant that for many years, Canada was contributing zero dollars toward the binational science program. Budget 2022 fixed that, but the flawed machinery of government led to many more years of having to try to make sure that the resources for science were actually directed to the fisheries commission as Parliament intended. That was how the governance flaw led to Canada underfunding particularly the science portion of the program for many years.
What is the impact on the mandate? Since we’re independent, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission commissioners were not doing anything that would put restrictions on the science. We proceeded as normal to coordinate the science that we do in a binational way that benefits both Canada and the United States, so I am proud to say that we’ve had no impact on our mandate.
I am also very proud to say that the scientific partnerships, many of which we have developed over decades, remain strong. We have many science projects that have both U.S. and Canadian scientists working hand in hand on the same lake or under the same problem. Again, those are unaffected.
I will tell you what is affected, though: some of the ease of border crossing. Since we are a binational border-blind program, when there are hiccups in the ease of travelling back and forth, for whatever reason, it has had some impact on the scientific exchange, but it has not had an impact on what we funded or what we’ve been focusing on. We’ve been carrying on as usual, as we’ve done for decades.
Mr. McClinchey: May I add to that in answer to the senator’s question that we are pleased to say that the commission is at this moment fully resourced with what has been requested. In answer to your direct question about whether we have the resources to undertake the science program? Yes.
Secondly, as an observation, in your question, you have perhaps more eloquently than we could have done made the case for why the independent machinery of government needs to exist. Again, it is not for us to say whether there could be political differences between the approach of the administration and the approach of the Canadian government, but having the commission acting as this independent source for doing things — independent from governments — in this case, the science program — and I would invite you to review the testimony by Dr. Andrew Muir, who is the head of our science directorate. Amazing things are happening, but the fact that it is happening independently of government interference or wherever such interference might come from allows all the partner organizations to claim ownership of it and to act upon it in a way that is absolutely critical. There is a joint strategic plan of management for the Great Lakes Fishery that we facilitate. There are lake committees that take that science and use it to make environmental decisions such as total allowable catch limits and regulatory things, and it is all based on that information, so it is absolutely critical that they understand and accept this science as being independent and valid and are able to take ownership of it. The senator has made the case for why this is so critical.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Surette: I’m not sure if I dare ask this question. I will summarize it. That kind of threw a kink in what I was going to say.
Coming back to your point, I’m not sure it is a financial issue but a governance issue. Okay, so I got that part straight. So it is mostly to do with the sea lamprey control program — or all to do with it?
Mr. Gaden: That’s the portion that ended up at DFO, yes.
Senator Surette: My other question was about what happened to the program over all these years, but the program kept going, not funded under your responsibility — well, it was under your responsibility, but you were signing MOAs for a number of years now to complete this piece here, so at least the work was getting done on the ground. Am I correct on this point?
Mr. Gaden: Thank you for the question.
The work was being done, but unfortunately it was only a partial implementation of the treaty. Remember, we have three main things that we are responsible for: sea lamprey control, science and cross-border collaboration. Since DFO was the holder of the budget and also the agency that carried out the sea lamprey portion of the program, they only asked for the portion of the money that they would get to control the lamprey. They were assuming that that was all the commission needed, and they ignored everything else, including the science that the senator asked about and everything else we do.
That’s what led to the problem over time. That gap between what the commitment was and what the United States was providing and what Canada was providing got wider and wider. That’s why there was a flaw. If you put budgeting responsibility in the same agency that carries it out — Senator Deacon very eloquently explained the flaw of that — we got into the position we were in.
I will also say that Canada, even with that arrangement, was slightly below what the U.S. was providing for lamprey control as well. When you take the authority away from the fishery commission to actually implement the treaty, you end up in places where we don’t want to be, where basically the contractor and the contractee is the same, and there is really no way to implement the treaty that way.
Senator Surette: Was this the plan you were referring to that you renegotiate every year?
Mr. Gaden: Senator, we renegotiate every year a contract with anybody who carries out services on our behalf.
Senator Surette: I see, the service providers.
Mr. Gaden: That’s right. And the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which does a super job carrying out lamprey control — we do have an agreement or a contract with Department of Fisheries and Oceans that outlines the work to be done in the coming year, which lamprey control activities will take place, how much it will cost and so on. It is a contract and a work plan. We do that with any agency, like the U.S. Geological Survey for science and so on.
Mr. McClinchey: Just to clarify, it is important to note that the commission began this effort to make this change in 2018 after many years of troubling outcomes. Our commissioners entered this process viewing the money and the underfunding not as the problem but as a symptom of the problem, and the problem was governance, and that problem, despite the changes, remains today.
Senator Boudreau: Mr. Chair, my question is for you. It doesn’t seem like we will get to the bottom of this until we call in senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to explain themselves. Do you require a motion from one of us to do that?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boudreau. At our in camera meeting last week, we agreed on the process, if needed, after this evening’s meeting. There is no doubt that it’s needed. That’s where we are headed.
Senator Boudreau: I didn’t know if we needed a motion. If so, I would have made one, but, if not, that’s great.
The Chair: No, we’re okay. I was speaking to the clerk. We were discussing that just before you asked your question. Great minds think alike, and you don’t have to finish the rest of it.
That sums up our meeting for this evening. I want to thank our witnesses for coming back. This issue was brought up last week by our committee members, and I am very pleased with the update, especially for our new members on the committee, to give them an idea of where we are. This is one of the issues that we thought was dealt with. With the copies of correspondence that we received last year, we felt the issue was dealt with in its entirety, but we now find out that it is not. We have had some clarification on the concerns of the commission. Our next move will be to invite back some people from the departments to see if we can find out where the problem is and see if we can move it along and get to where we thought we were last fall.
With that, do you have any closing remarks? Our questions from senators are finished.
Mr. Gaden: I have no closing remarks except to thank the committee for its continued and ongoing and sustained attention to this matter. We really appreciate it and hope, as well, that we can get to the bottom of this and solve this problem once and for all to allow the commission to function as intended. Thank you very much for this committee’s work.
Mr. McClinchey: Mr. Chair, I would like to add to Dr. Gaden’s comments. Appreciation to all senators and your staff. Your offices have been wonderful; we reached out. I would add that, as you go through some of these issues, even outside the Great Lakes Fishery Commission itself, we are certainly happy to be a resource for your offices. We have access to networks. We have access to information. If you have issues that come before you, please never hesitate to contact us.
The Chair: Thank you. It has been a very fruitful session this evening.
(The committee adjourned.)