THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 28, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:34 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. I’m Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and I have the pleasure of chairing this committee. Today, during our meeting, should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal that to me or the clerk, and we will work to resolve your 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, British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned Territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Aki.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Good evening and welcome. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Welcome. I’m Bev Busson from British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today, the committee will be hearing from officials from three departments on the topic of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I will ask our witness to introduce themselves, please.
Niall Cronin, Executive Director, United States Transboundary Affairs Division, Global Affairs Canada: Good evening. I’m joined this evening by Davide Cargnello, Acting Director of Operations for Machinery of Government at the Privy Council Office; and by Tricia Mitchell, Regional Director General, Ontario and Prairies Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[Translation]
Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge that I am on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.
[English]
I would also like to note that on June 17, 2024, I was honoured to be appointed as a Canadian commissioner to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or GLFC. However, this evening, I will address you in my capacity as an official from Global Affairs Canada.
[Translation]
As part of my duties at Global Affairs Canada, I lead a team that provides analysis and advice to senior officials and ministers at Global Affairs Canada, as well as other federal departments, on matters relating to borders, energy, water and the environment that have an impact on bilateral relations between Canada and the United States.
[English]
In this context, my team and I work closely with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on matters related to budgets, governance, appointments and promoting the important work of the binational commission. Officials at Global Affairs Canada are in regular contact with the GLFC secretariat; colleagues after DFO; and U.S. counterparts, both directly and through Canada’s diplomatic network in the United States.
We are aware that several stakeholders and parliamentarians called for a transfer of ministerial responsibility for the GLFC from Fisheries and Oceans Canadian to Global Affairs Canada. We note that this transfer was made via an order-in-council dated October 18, 2024. When I appeared before the committee last year, I explained my understanding at the time, which was that Canada’s $19.6 million annual contribution to the GLFC, which was then part of DFOs budget, would come to Global Affairs Canada and that the same would occur for subsequent years.
If I may, I would like to clarify that remark: Canada’s $19.6 million funding commitment for the GLFC was not fully transferred to GAC. DFO remains a key partner in fulfilling the activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, notably through the Sea Lamprey Control Program. The personnel and staff associated with that program were not transferred to GAC.
I acknowledge that some would like all the funds to be managed by Global Affairs Canada. My understanding now is that it is not possible, because it is DFO personnel who carry out the Sea Lamprey Control Program further to annual work plans agreed upon by the GLFC and DFO. Funds from one federal government cannot be used to pay the salaries and benefits of the employees of another department — or the operating expenses of another department.
I want to assure you, senators, that my team and other colleagues at GAC continue to work closely with the GLFC secretariat and DFO. We are taking steps to ensure that measures are in place for the future so that Canada continues to uphold its obligations under the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States of America and Canada, and Canada continues to honour our funding commitment, including for the Sea Lamprey Control Program, that are set out in commission budgets and approved by the contracting parties, Canada and the United States, to the convention.
The government recognizes that the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries and the GLFC’s ongoing efforts that flow from this convention are vital to controlling sea lamprey, conducting scientific research and maintaining cooperation among Canadian and American fishery management agencies in the Great Lakes.
[Translation]
I would like to conclude by thanking the committee for its work on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and for helping to raise its profile.
[English]
If I could, I would pass the floor to my colleague from the Privy Council Office and then to regional director general Tricia Mitchell from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Davide Cargnello, Acting Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak to this committee on behalf of the Privy Council Office’s Machinery of Government Secretariat about the important binational work of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
[Translation]
My name is Davide Cargnello, and I am the Acting Director of Operations for Machinery of Government at the Privy Council Office, or PCO. I would propose to offer a short overview of what the Machinery of Government Secretariat does and then a few comments about last year’s transfer of responsibility for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or GLFC, from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In Canada, organizing the federal machinery of government is a prerogative of the Prime Minister. Housed in PCO, the Machinery of Government Secretariat advises the Prime Minister on the exercise of that prerogative. This includes the responsibilities of ministers (i.e., their powers, duties and functions) and the constellation of entities (i.e., departments, agencies and other bodies) that are needed to fulfill the government’s obligations to Canadians and implement its agenda.
One important machinery question concerns the portfolio placement of entities (i.e., which minister should be responsible for a particular entity). Parliament sometimes identifies in legislation a specific responsible minister or asks the Governor-in-Council to identify such a minister through orders in council. In addition, the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act permits the Governor-in-Council among other things to transfer any powers, duties or functions from one minister to another.
[English]
On October 18, 2024, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the Governor-in-Council transferred, by order-in-council, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Fisheries in relation to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, thus making the Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for the GLFC.
The then Minister of Foreign Affairs communicated the decision by letter to the GLFC, noting that going forward she would be the GLFC’s primary interlocutor, be responsible for recommending appointments to the Canadian Section and advance funding requests through the budget process. She also noted that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, would “ . . . continue to carry out its activities in support of the GLFC’s mandate through the Sea Lamprey Control Program.” Following this, over the course of the last year or so, Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, DFO and the GLFC have worked together to implement that decision.
I have noted that witnesses before this committee, including representatives of the GLFC, have expressed a very positive view of the work that DFO does in delivering the Sea Lamprey Control Program as part of Canada’s commitment under the convention. The government takes its obligations under the convention very seriously and views these as a shared commitment. Indeed, with the transfer of responsibility, GAC and DFO collaborate closely now on all matters related to GLFC activities, which I believe can only strengthen Canada’s involvement under the convention and support for the GLFC in its current and future work.
My colleague Ms. Mitchell will speak about how DFO is delivering the Sea Lamprey Control Program.
[Translation]
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the aspects of this issue that touch on machinery of government.
Thank you.
[English]
Tricia Mitchell, Regional Director General, Ontario and Prairies Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Tricia Mitchell, and I am the Regional Director General for Ontario and Prairies Region at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO. I am located at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, Ontario, and as regional director general, I am responsible for the operational delivery of Fisheries and Oceans’ national and regional programs within the region.
[Translation]
DFO recognizes the importance of international agreements protecting and promoting the Great Lakes and their economy. DFO collaborates with its partners to fulfill its commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We respect and appreciate the importance of the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
[English]
We appreciate the important role that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission plays in facilitating effort among fishery management agencies to advance shared objectives for the Great Lakes through A Joint Strategic Plan for the Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, to which DFO is a signatory.
We value the important relationship we have with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to advance science. DFO scientists regularly work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission science program to increase our shared knowledge about the Great Lakes system and challenges it faces so that, collectively and collaboratively, we ensure that the Great Lakes remains the important binational resource they are for future generations.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada also appreciates and respects the vital mandate that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has to design and deliver a binational sea lamprey control program. My understanding is that at the inaugural meeting of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in 1956, consistent with both Articles IV and VI of the convention, the commission selected DFO as the Canadian delivery agent for the program. I appreciate the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s continued trust in me and my staff at DFO to carry out these responsibilities. Without this successful binational program and the annual, ongoing collaborative effort of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DFO and others, there would be no fishery today.
As my colleagues have mentioned, a year ago, the portfolio responsibility for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission was transferred from the Minister of Fisheries to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is fully committed to implementing this decision, and we have worked closely with our colleagues from Global Affairs and other federal agencies to ensure that the change in machinery of government happens in a way that ensures continued, stable and uninterrupted delivery of the Sea Lamprey Control Program.
As the senior program executive, I’m extremely proud of the work we do with Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and I am grateful that the men and women who deliver the Sea Lamprey Control Program out of our Sault Ste. Marie office have consistently been recognized by the commission and this committee for their dedication and excellence.
I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses, and I know your testimony created some questions around the table, so I’m looking forward to hearing from our senators.
I would ask any senator if you’re directing your question to one or all of our witnesses, please do so for the assistance of time.
Senator Busson: My question is best directed to Mr. Cronin. Mr. Cronin, you had mentioned in your brief presentation that $19.6 million was the total budget that was allotted to DFO when this transfer happened in October of 2024. Of that $19.6 million, how much money is still with GAC and how much of it has been transferred over to DFO to do their lamprey control?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. If I could clarify, the $19.6 million is the total amount of funds that Canada has set aside to contribute to the work of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Part of that budget includes the Sea Lamprey Control Program whose employees are DFO employees.
When I was here last year, what I had thought was that the full $19.6 million would come to Global Affairs and then a portion would be returned to DFO and that would be equal to the amount that DFO and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission had agreed on for the Sea Lamprey Control Program and the remainder of the funds would be transferred directly to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission from Global Affairs to carry out research and other works.
What happened last fiscal year? Approximately $10.3 million came to Global Affairs and was transferred to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The amount that remained at DFO was equivalent to the amount that had been agreed in negotiations between GLFC and DFO. That was equal to the budget for the Sea Lamprey Control Program and the work plan that had been agreed between DFO and GLFC.
Senator Busson: I am not sure how to phrase this. You’re now in the ministry responsible for the relationship between our country and the United States. Your title actually reflects that. Are you comfortable with the arrangement that now exists where this budget is basically withheld and designated to another agency and yet you’re responsible for that performance?
Mr. Cronin: There are a number of things that give me comfort. First is the respect that is being shown for the convention by all of the departments involved in this process. I see that in the conversations that I’m having with colleagues. I also see that in the realization that when the transfer didn’t occur in the way we thought it would, we knew that we needed to do other things.
The steps that are being taken very much by Global Affairs and by DFO in partnership are to make sure that the money that’s being set aside in support of GLFC is still only for that purpose.
In addition to those steps, there will always be other work to be done. That involves, one, making sure that we, as the Government of Canada, are communicating very clearly with the GLFC. Two, we must always be able to answer the question, is Canada meeting its commitments under the convention? I was encouraged at the previous appearance of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission officials that this was answered in the affirmative. Also, we must report out transparently.
When it comes to dealing with our U.S. counterparts, the most important thing for me is whether Canada is meeting its commitments. How we organize ourselves to do that is very much, for Canada as a sovereign nation, our decision. But if how we organize ourselves causes the question about our commitments to be answered in the negative, then that is an issue.
At this point in time, we are meeting our commitments. I’m confident we are putting in place measures that will allow us to do so. How the funding is structured is one part of that. The other steps that we’re taking are in terms of making sure that that funding is fenced in, in both departments; making sure we’re reporting out transparently on how the funding is being spent and dispersed; and continuing our communications and engagement with the GLFC. Those steps will have us on a better path — or will continue to have us on the path we’ve been on.
The relationship is in a much better place with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission than it’s been in a number of years. That’s down to a lot of work that was done prior to the machinery-of-government change. Ms. Mitchell and her colleagues at DFO have been working with the commission and involving Global Affairs. We are in a better place, and I am confident that we will continue to be able to answer in the affirmative to that question, is Canada meeting its commitments?
Senator Busson: I accept your answer wholeheartedly, but I just remind you and me and everybody else in the room that this transfer happened in the first place because the commitments were not being met. You have a big job to do.
Mr. Cronin: I do hope we can impress this upon the committee this evening, Mr. Chair. We understand the history. We understand the reason for the machinery-of-government change. That’s why I think, in addition to how the funding flows on the Canadian side, there are other things we need to be doing in terms of making sure the communication is strong with the commission; making sure we’re reporting out transparently on how the funding is being used; and reminding our American colleagues, and others who ask, that it’s very reasonable for them to question whether Canada is meeting its commitments. If the answer is yes, then how Canada organizes itself to do that is very much Canada’s responsibility as a sovereign nation.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: With all due respect, we need to make our answers a bit more concise. Otherwise, we’ll be here until midnight. Most of us who were up watching the baseball game last night are looking for an early night tonight. I know you have a lot of detail, but please realize there is a list of senators who want to ask questions.
Senator C. Deacon: There’s an understanding of the past. I’d like an acknowledgement of the past. This committee has seen the evidence that there were $72 million retained by DFO of transfers that should have gone to the Great Lakes Fishery Commissions. We’ve seen news articles from the United States where this was reported.
We also had witnesses from DFO, from 200 Kent Street, Ottawa. The problems are not out in the field. The problems are, I think, at 200 Kent Street. We had the CFO and others come and give us the most convoluted and opaque answers to simple questions. Any time we get that, “spidey senses” go up.
Is there an understanding that random amounts, from as low as $20,000 to more than $8 million in another year, were retained by DFO, unrelated to the Sea Lamprey Control Program? These are just amounts that were kept by DFO. Is it understood that this 20-year history exists, and that’s probably why there’s a lot of concern? I would like some acknowledgement from each of you about that history.
Mr. Cronin: There certainly is an acknowledgement that the relationship between DFO and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission had issues. At times, the communication and the transparency around funds maybe were not what they should have been. It’s very important to acknowledge and learn from that history but also to look forward. Especially at this point in time in the relationship between Canada and the United States, it’s important for us to be able to say that we are meeting our obligations under a convention that both countries signed. As a sovereign nation, we’re organizing ourselves to make sure that this continues to be the case into the future.
Senator C. Deacon: Was that a yes or no? The way to move forward is often to accept the problem that you have had to overcome. If there isn’t full acceptance of the problem, it makes me worried that perhaps we are not getting the solution that you’re proposing. It has me concerned because we were not given answers that made any sense of the past, not from anybody.
Mr. Cronin: Mr. Chair, it is important for us to recognize what happened in the relationship between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in the past. There is no question that there were issues. That’s accepted and it’s understood.
I think everyone is asking, including colleagues when I speak to them at the commission, how do we move forward? How do we put in place structures to make sure we don’t go back to that situation? Then, thinking back to the previous question, is there comfort with the steps that are being taken now? I can answer that in the affirmative. I think a lot of that comes down to the understanding, appreciation and respect for the 1954 convention and Canada’s obligations thereby.
Senator C. Deacon: DFO is a contractor to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, so DFO works for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. There is a contract in place even year based upon a budget that is put in place. Will that contract be overseen by GAC and you in your role in a way that we have certainty — and what certainty can you provide — that, in fact, the services will be delivered as contracted?
That was the problem that occurred over 20 years, with $70 million just being used for other purposes and not for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission projects around sea lamprey control.
It would be good to hear from each of you in this regard.
Mr. Cronin: I will start and then turn to my colleagues to supplement, because it’s a very important question.
DFO is selected by the commission pursuant to an article in the convention in order to deliver the program formulated and implemented by another article in the convention. This is done pursuant to an agreement and a work plan between the GLFC secretariat and DFO that, then, becomes part of the commission’s budget, which is set by commissioners and submitted to the Government of Canada and the United States for approval.
What will happen now is that budget will come to Global Affairs Canada for approval, and that gives more certainty that decisions taken by the commission will come to the Global Affairs Canada for approval and that gives more certainty that decisions taken at the commission will be respected.
I think there is a process going forward that gets to the heart of the question about whether Canada will meet its obligations. Will the delivery agent be held accountable? I think the answer is “yes.”
In practice, when it comes to putting together the work plan on the agreement between DFO and GLFC, that’s a very collaborative process. It’s collaborative because all of the people involved are pursuing the same goal and objective, and the people working on that plan are the people who report to my colleague, Regional Director General Mitchell.
So I am encouraged. I’ve gotten to know more of them over the past year, and I continue to be impressed by their professionalism and dedication. It’s a really special group of people working on a problem that no one government can solve itself. That is quite inspiring to see, and I am encouraged for the future.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m wondering if Ms. Mitchell or Mr. Cargnello have anything to add.
Ms. Mitchell: Thank you for the question. Maybe I can just elaborate upon that.
For clarity around this table, we follow this process: We have technical staff who sit on the Sea Lamprey Control Board, overseen by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, along with colleagues at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Sea Lamprey Control Board also has academic and Indigenous partners.
As Mr. Cronin said, it’s a very collaborative process. The technical experts sit down and look at which streams they are going to treat, and then a work plan is proposed, developed and costed. That goes up through the commissioners. It’s approved by the commissioners, and then we develop an extremely detailed work plan. I have a 29-page work plan that goes down to every asset over $5,000 — all the trucks, everything. Once it’s approved by the commissioners and then approved by the two contracting parties, Executive Secretary Dr. Gaden and I sign that work plan. It’s costed. This year, the work plan was $9.2 million. We report out quarterly on how we’re spending that money, and then at the end of the year, if there’s anything left of the $9.2 million, we transfer it back to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
We’re hoping that will create some trust around this table. We hope our continued work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission staff is rebuilding trust in how we are spending the money. As Mr. Cronin said, we’re also working to put in place additional measures to have that money set so it can only be spent for those purposes.
Senator C. Deacon: Ms. Mitchell, I would suggest that if we had anything even close to an answer like that during our meetings last year, I think all of us would have felt an awful lot better. The clarity and transparency — we got none of that from the senior officials last year. It was very upsetting. So thank you for that.
Mr. Cargnello: From a machinery-of-government perspective, I think, one, it would be difficult not to acknowledge that there have been challenges in the past, such as calls from stakeholders and parliamentarians. I think, clearly, there have been challenges to surmount.
On the specific point of the budgetary questions, again, from a machinery-principles perspective, if you will, I think there is a benefit to having the sort of clarity that you get from knowing that funds that are appropriated to the Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the purposes of delivering the Sea Lamprey Control program are, indeed, appropriated to DFO, which is the department accountable for those activities, and that the funds appropriated to Global Affairs Canada for the purpose of supporting the GLFC and its other activities are appropriated to that minister. Frankly, that minister is to be held to account for activities following under that rubric of funding.
There is some benefit, I think, to have the clarity in terms of how the funding operates.
Senator Ravalia: I appreciate that clarity, because some of my questioning would have followed on what Senator Deacon asked.
In previous testimony, I think we all sensed that there were challenges and even perhaps a level of acrimony that existed, partially due to DFO’s dual role as both contracting agent for GLFC and as a manager of the aquatic invasive species, which might have led to some concerns about possible conflicts of interest.
There were also discussions about the Fisheries Act controlling domestic waters versus a convention where it’s two nations. Given our legislation as it exists, would it be complicated to hand all of this responsibility of sea lamprey control to the GLFC? How important is it that DFO maintains this particular role? Would it be more seamless if there were one entity responsible for it?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question. It’s a good question, and it’s come up in the past.
There are real advantages to having DFO involved as the delivery agent for the Sea Lamprey Control program. Certainly, there is recognition at the commission in making the choice to select DFO as the delivery agent.
If I could, in conversations with GLFC and DFO scientists — this is going back to May, during a visit to Sault Ste. Marie — I was certainly struck just talking about the natural collaboration and synergies that can take place between the program within DFO and then other efforts that are taking place. The example was the reintroduction of certain fish stock. It was planned for a certain time of the year when sea lamprey control spraying was also taking place. There needed to be a conversation between the scientists who wanted to reintroduce the species with the scientists who were also spraying lampreycide in the streams to ensure, first, that the effects of the lampreycide and this new species were known, and second, that it was coordinated so that any risks could be mitigated. That happens naturally when the program sits within DFO.
It’s also important to recognize that, because of the past, there needs to be checks and balances in place. I think having Global Affairs Canada involved now helps with that. Then, also going back to Ms. Mitchell’s intervention about how the plan comes together, that does work. I think that’s what we’re trying to ensure happens into the future.
Senator Ravalia: Director General Mitchell, did you want to add anything to that?
Ms. Mitchell: Mr. Cronin gave a very good answer, but I do think it fits very naturally with our mandate and our expertise. In addition, I’m impressed that you remembered. We were trying to reintroduce the Eastern Sand Darter, which is a species at risk. Mr. Cronin is right; having the Species At Risk Program, which reports to me, along with the Sea Lamprey Control Program, which reports to me, made it very easy for us to bring everything together and say, “Wait a second. We want to introduce a species here. We can’t do it when we’re spraying. How can we adjust timing on both sides?” That made it seamless.
Outside of the resources that we’re discussing today around sea lamprey control, there is a whole variety of points of synergy between the work that we do at DFO and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Our scientists are regularly working with Great Lakes Fishery Commission scientists. We’re sitting on a number of technical committees across the board outside of the Sea Lamprey Control Program. Then we work, of course, with the Province of Ontario.
Even without the Sea Lamprey Control Program, DFO has a number of points of interaction with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We need to be at the table regardless.
Senator Ravalia: With respect to this particular program, can we be assured on a go-forward basis, given this new model that’s been developed that the funding hiccups of the past should not be a concern for the GLFC?
Mr. Cronin: Mr. Chair, I would answer yes. In addition to the structures in place, the continued communication, the clear lines of accountabilities, it will also take consistent monitoring and intention. We welcome the chance to appear before this committee. We welcome the attention that this issue is receiving because it’s important.
We heard from Great Lakes Fishery Commission officials a couple of weeks ago that the work supports a $7-billion-a-year industry. From Director Mitchell’s introduction this evening, without the collaboration and cooperation between DFO staff who deliver and do the work of the Sea Lamprey Control Program, and the GLFC, we wouldn’t have that industry. That’s why it’s very impressive to see the operation. It’s a real privilege to be a part of that.
Senator Ravalia: I thank you for your sincerity.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome to our witnesses. My question is for Ms. Mitchell. I am new to this committee. I am trying to understand the implications of the transfer, the financial implications and the expected results. Could you outline the medium- and long-term prospects for controlling or eradicating sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, particularly with regard to the research and development of new technologies?
I would also like to understand what concrete results we have achieved to date. Beyond the financial issues, what obstacles are you facing and experiencing at the moment?
Ms. Mitchell: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I’m actually very pleased, Mr. Chair, to answer this question because I love to talk about the work we do in the region.
In terms of the magnitude of the problem and as we’ve discussed, back in the 1960s, the fishery in the Great Lakes was decimated by Sea Lamprey. Under the leadership of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, targets were put in place to get the fishery back to a rehabilitated state.
Over the past more than 50 years, based on the work we’ve done under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and in collaboration with our U.S. counterparts, the sea lamprey populations are down 90%, so it’s huge. Trout were declared rehabilitated in Lake Superior last year, for the first time since the 1960s. It is one of our great success stories.
In terms of the challenges and obstacles, the biggest one is just the magnitude of the problems that we’re working on and the fact that no one agency can solve them alone.
Within the Canadian context, the provinces manage the fisheries. DFO has a role to play with aquatic invasive species. Really, that’s why the fishery commission is so important in bringing us all together, to make sure no one is overfishing. That’s more of a state-province conversation, but that’s all coordinated under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The approach we’ve taken on sea lamprey impacts the entire ecosystem and the multibillion-dollar fishery from which we all benefit.
The commission has organized what they call a border-blind process. When that committee gets together to figure out how we’re going to do those treatments, it’s all about finding the most cost-effective way to do it. It’s not about what Canada does and what the U.S. does. We treat about 30% of the streams. Some of that work is done in the U.S. We do the full Canadian side of the treatments, but because of where the sea lamprey control stations are located in the U.S., it’s actually more cost-effective for us to treat the southern portion of Lake Ontario, so we do American treatments as well.
That is one of the things that is really important about the commission moving forward as we tackle new species. We’re worried about invasive carp. We’re worried about the zebra mussel and quagga mussel. They are already there, but we’re dealing with the impacts of those on the fisheries.
Long term, it really is that continued collaborative relationship with everyone at the table who has a role to play in solving these really challenging issues for the ecosystem.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for being here this evening. Like Senator Gerba, I am new to all of this and trying to get my footing here.
I am following on Senator Deacon’s question and building on my newness. I’ve heard “work plan.” I’ve heard “collaborative approach.” I’ve heard “convention.” I’ve heard “accountability.”
Maybe I’ll start with you, Mr. Cronin. What issue and what problem are you trying to fix, so that we’re all on the same page? I certainly have some understanding of it, but I want to get your understanding of what issue, what problem, you are trying to fix with this new convention, this new work plan, that you’ve put in place. There may be more than one issue, so take your time.
Mr. Cronin: I appreciate the question because it does get at the drivers for the machinery-of-government change and how we ensure that things continue to move forward in the positive direction that they seem to be in at the moment.
We heard from stakeholders, including from some in the United States, questions about whether or not Canada was meeting its commitments under the 1954 convention. That was a fair question for people to ask because this was an agreement signed by two sovereign nations, and there were obligations under it.
The problem that we’re trying to solve, and I think we’re moving in the right direction, is setting in place structures and systems that we can point to, to assure anyone who asks that Canada is living up to its obligations under this convention. If the answer to that question is yes, then how we organize ourselves to do that is very much a discussion for Canadians to be having.
I do think we’re heading in the right direction. Like I said before, the structures we’re putting in place will get us there, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need to continue to have clear communications between the Government of Canada and the commission. We need to ensure we’re reporting transparently on how the funding is being used. We need to make sure that the atmosphere is being created so the collaboration that’s taking place between Director General Mitchell, her team, all the other states that are involved, the commission and Indigenous governments, continues.
This is one that requires consistent care and attention because it’s that important.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. I appreciate that. I think we have a commitment from you on the work and that process, but we have some trepidation on whether it is complete, that there needs to be ongoing monitoring. I’ll leave it there.
I may have been confused when I heard the response earlier, and maybe I could just take the time, Director General Mitchell and Mr. Cargnello — I apologize if I’m saying your name wrong — to get some clarification.
Director General Mitchell, you had shared that you were going to put together a work plan that was going to go over to the GLFC and that was going to be ratified and then you would work on that effort, whereas I heard Mr. Cargnello say that there are two separate work plans, that DFO has its responsibility and GLFC has its responsibility. That’s how the funding model is designed, and each will carry its own areas of responsibility but one does not get consensus or ratification from the other. Correct me where I have that wrong.
Ms. Mitchell: The work plan that I was referring to is just for the delivery of the Canadian portion of the Sea Lamprey Control Program and the resources associated with that. Then, I will let my colleague speak to the other part of the funding. The funding changes every year depending on what is approved by the commissioners and the countries. This year, it was $19.2 million to deliver on that program and we have about 50 staff that work on it.
Mr. Cargnello: Thank you for the question. To add to that, my understanding is that the funding that is appropriated to DFO is for the purposes of delivering that Sea Lamprey Control Program whereas the funding that is appropriated to Global Affairs Canada is for the purpose of supporting the funding for the GLFC itself and its attendant activities.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much for being here today. I have a comment and then a question.
I was just a little concerned. You’ve evolved a little bit more in your response, but in your opening comments, Mr. Cronin, I don’t think you were trying to be dismissive of the concern that was around, but you said “some stakeholders and a few parliamentarians,” but I can’t think of any stakeholder that we would have met with that said, “Listen, we have to keep this with DFO. Everything is working great.” There was certainly none of that.
I know that in my past life having worked with Joe Comartin who was consul general down in Detroit, it was an issue that he banged the drum for during his entirety in Detroit and his predecessor did too, so it’s been an issue for quite some time.
I really appreciate your intervention and your response to Senator Deacon’s question on the funding because the good doctor referred to them as hiccups. I think some of the stakeholders would refer to them as full-blown seizures where the bill came and the Canadians were gone to the laboratory.
Forgive us as a committee if we’re just a little confused. Back in 2024, it was Richard Goodyear who said that everything would be transferred in its entirety and all that, and now we see that has not happened, so forgive us if that’s what prompts it.
So now to the question. We met just recently with a couple of congress people, Marcy Kaptur from Ohio and Bill Huizenga from Michigan, and they spoke at great length about the importance of the Great Lakes and the relationship. With the sensitivity around our relations with our neighbours to the south and the mercurial nature of the president, is it all hands on deck at Global Affairs to make sure you’re comfortable that we’re there for us to play a major role? Are the funds in place now?
To reiterate what Senator Deacon said, all stakeholders can’t say enough about the quality of the work that DFO does and what they do, the boots on the ground, their expertise and their effort and all that. I think committee members would share that view. Are sufficient funds in place to make sure that this isn’t an issue to prompt another response from the White House?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you very much for the question, and my apologies to the committee if I downplayed the concerns in my opening remarks. That certainly was not my intent. We heard the stakeholders loud and clear, and we understand the reasons they were making those interventions.
During the first meeting of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, commissioners decided on a funding formula going forward whereby funds for sea lamprey control would be shared 31% Canada, 69% the United States, and that funding for other activities would be shared 50-50. I’m confident that the funds are in place on the Canadian side to meet those obligations. I was very encouraged by the testimony a couple of weeks ago from Dr. Marc Gaden and Mr. Greg McClinchey that confirmed that. That’s absolutely the message we’re taking to our U.S. counterparts if they ever raise it. Rest assured that Canada is meeting its obligations under this convention point final.
Senator Surette: From what I’ve heard up to this point, there doesn’t seem to be any issue on the quality of the program, but my read on this is that it seems like it’s a governance issue. It appears to be that the agreement as it is now without the full transfer makes the governance a little bit clunkier. If I read it properly, if it were all transferred, there would be one minister responsible on this end, and it appears to me that this might be the issue here.
If I’m correct, then moving forward — and it seemed to be an issue in the past as well — they have to sign an agreement or contract every year and that will have to stay in place moving forward as well, if I understand correctly. So the contract with DFO will always be an issue on the side from the commission being able to sit and control their entire operation. Am I correct?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I’m thinking through the premise that underlies it.
I think the question of governance is an important one. I think the way the system works is that the commission approves a budget for the various activities that it’s responsible for, and then that’s communicated to both Canada and the United States for approval. So that will come to Global Affairs.
I think the senator is correct, there would still be a work plan developed between DFO and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, but it would fall within the framework of that budget.
What it’s going to take going forward — and I’m encouraged the building blocks are there — is continued collaboration and cooperation between Global Affairs and DFO, continued and consistent, clear communication with Great Lakes Fishery Commission and monitoring to make sure that Canada is indeed continuing to meet its commitments.
I do deal with a number of other bilateral commissions. There’s not one model, but the through line is this question of whether or not Canada is meeting its commitments.
And from a Global Affairs perspective that always has to be answered in the affirmative, and that’s what we’re charged to do. And I’m encouraged by the team at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, colleagues at DFO and the Privy Council are all on the same page in that regard, and that’s what gives me confidence looking forward.
Senator Surette: In your opening remarks you said one department can’t pay another department. Why wouldn’t it be possible to transfer all the money to the commission and let the commission control the full operation?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you. That question has absolutely come up as an option.
I think the issue is the authorities that DFO has to then receive funding from the commission in order to implement the Sea Lamprey Control Program, that is not possible under the system we have in place.
What it takes then is the continued collaboration and cooperation between DFO and the commission to make sure a plan is in place that they both agree, because it’s the employees of DFO that end up doing the work.
We are moving in the right direction. The relationship in the field has always been strong. What I’m certainly seeing, in the conversations I’m having with colleagues here in Ottawa, is a respect and appreciation for the importance of the 1954 convention. And maybe that didn’t come out in conversations before, maybe that wasn’t as present as it should have been. I think it’s there now.
Senator Surette: This is my last question, I think. You said we’re moving in the right direction, that means there’s still work to be done. Is the issue of DFO a stumbling block in completing that right direction?
Mr. Cronin: I don’t think so. When I say we’re moving in the right direction, it’s really like any issue in the Canada-U.S. relationship, it takes constant care and attention. It is not one that we can be complacent about. And that’s what drives those remarks.
I think what it will take is a combination of things, like making sure we have the structures in place on the Canadian side within the context we find ourselves, within our legal framework. Making sure we’re clearly communicating with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, making sure we’re reporting out. But we’ll have to keep doing that. This won’t be a one-and-done. This will be something that requires our attention.
Frankly, because all of this underpins a $7 billion industry in the Great Lakes region, it absolutely is worth our time and we have a responsibility to do so.
The Chair: Just to follow up on Senator Surette’s question, and I don’t intervene very often. I’m not sure I have all this correct, but we’re in the process now of moving the Canadian Coast Guard from the Department of Fishery and Oceans over to the Department of Defence. From what I understand the full package is going, there’s not going to be any leftovers in DFO.
The implementation of the program is carried out by DFO officials, they’re federal government employees. Why wouldn’t it be possible to take that part of the program, and the employees, and move them over to the other department? Why couldn’t you take the whole package — like the Coast Guard moving over — and do the same thing with this, because it seems to be an issue?
Mr. Cronin: If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair — and it’s always dangerous to engage in hypotheticals as an official, but following that example, employees of the Sea Lamprey Control Program would become employees of Global Affairs Canada. You would lose some of the natural connections and synergies take place in the Department of Fishery and Oceans, given the other expertise that lie in that department, given the other things that employees at DFO work on. There would be a loss there.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses. Just a fascinating discussion.
Mr. Cronin, I’m just thinking, I get your point about the loss of synergies, but if memory serves me from previous testimony, there’s almost like a vast number of stakeholders involved within this, to begin with. It’s a big initiative with a multitude of stakeholders.
My question is, getting back to your statement, Mr. Cronin, what you’re saying is, “we are meeting our obligations,” which I guess is a relative term. One could say, well, with respect to the convention itself? With respect to the legal framework? But I would imagine there are varying degrees with respect to which you’re meeting your commitment.
Issues do arise, and I get what you’re saying, you have a certain level of comfort with — you’re in a better position. I benefited from Ms. Mitchell’s discussion of a detailed work plan, and there are checks and balances within that to see if things are progressing as they should.
Mr. Cronin, your mention of structures in place, communications, accountability measures, things of that nature sort of give you that certain level of comfort.
But at the end of the day, who makes the determination to what extent you’re meeting your commitments? Is it just a rudimentary exercise, or who plays a role in that determination?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you, that’s a great question.
I think from Global Affairs’ perspective, when we talk about whether or not Canada is meeting its commitments, its obligations, we’re looking at the international agreement that Canada has signed. And what does that international agreement obligate the parties to it to do?
And so for me, speaking as an official from Global Affairs, there are a number of things.
At that first meeting of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, commissioners decided on a funding formula, making sure we’re meeting our financial obligations based on that funding formula.
There are a number of things in that convention that talk about what the commission will do and what parties to the convention will do. We need to make sure all of those can be checked.
That is judged often by outside stakeholders. As an official at Global Affairs Canada, I need to be able to point to very concrete examples of how Canada is meeting its obligations under X, Y and Z, especially at this point in the Canada-U.S. relationship. If a U.S. counterpart asks me that question, my response needs to be ironclad. But I also need to be very clear with colleagues outside of Canada that if the answer to those questions is yes, then how Canada organizes itself to meet those obligations is very much Canada’s business.
Senator Prosper: I get that, but we all know persons who are in positions to write their own report cards. Right? You could give yourself an “F” or shiny faces or stars or whatever cetera, but what is that mechanism? Everybody wants to look good; let’s face it. Everybody wants to show that they’re operating under the certain authorities that they should be. But what can give us comfort when we’re looking at our country meeting its commitments is when it is independently verified from people who are integral to the system, where they give it a stamp of approval.
Mr. Cronin: These are fantastic questions. I look to people like Dr. Gaden and Mr. McClinchey. On this specific subject, people who work at the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat. They have a wealth of experience, knowledge and a history on this file. When they come before this committee and say statements like, “We’re now in a place where both countries are meeting their obligations,” that’s a very powerful statement and a very powerful endorsement.
My job now, as an official, is to make sure every time they are back before this committee and they are asked that question, that is the answer the committee receives.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much for the testimony today.
I want to build off the questions of Senator Surette and Senator Prosper because we’re now getting to the details of how we prove that DFO has lived up to its responsibilities as a contractor to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is the one responsible for delivering the Sea Lamprey Control Program; correct? The contractor does it, but the commission is responsible for getting that job done. The United States and Canada have assigned that responsibility to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Is that correct?
Mr. Cronin: Under the convention, a specific article lists the duties of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. One of those duties includes formulating and implementing a comprehensive process for the purpose of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey populations in the Convention area.
That’s what the convention says. When it comes to the system within Canada, when we become a party to a treaty, we have to find a way to implement those provisions in our domestic law.
The responsibilities of DFO for fish and fish habitat and the prevention of control of aquatic invasive species are the domestic instruments on which we are relying to implement our obligations under the convention.
The short answer is that the two need to work together. I’m encouraged by Director General Mitchell’s testimony from the field that they are working together.
Senator C. Deacon: Agreed. We’re just talking about governance now. We have received confidence from Ms. Mitchell. I think most of us have felt confident in what we’re hearing you say, which is a nice change from what we heard a year ago.
I want to use the technical term that Senator Surette used, that governance is “clunky.” We can make it simpler if we just accept the fact that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is the body that defines what needs to be done. It’s the body where US$72 million was not delivered to them over a 20-year period under four different prime ministers. It wasn’t a political decision. Something was happening in DFO.
We need to know if there can be something to ensure completion of the duties of DFO. If I needed some work done on my house and if I have a nice grandmother who will pay for it, what happens if she writes a cheque to pay off the contractor but the job didn’t get done? That is what happened for over 20 years; the job didn’t get done completely. The amount of money never went for its intended purposes. How do we make sure we have a sign-off here from the commission? Because the commission exists to do this work.
Some certainty to us in that regard would be very helpful. It means that DFO will not give themselves gold stars; they will get the stars from the body that gave them the job to do. If they are not doing the job, then maybe we can change some laws and get another body to do that on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, rather than DFO.
I’m sure you’re going to keep doing a great job, but it’s that step. If we can keep the commissioners happy and know that DFO has delivered on the services and if we know no money is being expropriated anywhere, then all the time that we have spent on this issue is worth it. The issue went on for 20 years and was not resolved and everybody knew it. We need something just to get to Senator Prosper’s real focus and to get rid of that clunkiness. What can you suggest that we do?
Mr. Cronin: Thank you for the question, senator. I understand the premise, and I appreciate that it’s in service of making sure we’re on a solid footing going forward.
There are a couple of things we can do within the structure we have, still respecting the fact that the employees of the Sea Lamprey Control Program are DFO employees. They’re paid out of money appropriated to DFO.
There are a couple of things. When the commission sets a budget, it’s submitted to the contracting parties for approval. With the machinery-of-government change, that budget will now come to Global Affairs Canada to review and approve. There’s a check there. That also means that the conversations at the commission and the planning that takes place between DFO staff and the GLFC Secretariat to develop the work plan are set within a frame established by the commissioners and approved by governments. There is a rigour to that process that gives me confidence going forward.
Senator C. Deacon: I hope the transparency continues and that there are big, bright lights and maybe some flashing lights around these different elements on an ongoing basis. We’ve never been given a reason on why it took so long. It’s not C$70 million; it’s US$70 million. That money was not accounted for in what was supposed to be given to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. And that was for 20 years. It wasn’t political, because four different prime ministers were around. There’s a real issue that needs to be involved, and that relates to trust. I don’t think the problem is on the water with those doing the job. The trust problem is at 200 Kent. I think this change is intended to get rid of that, and I think you’ve heard from all of us that we’d like the governance to be less clunky and more transparent.
Mr. Cronin: I mentioned this last year when I was before the committee: I do think efforts were under way at DFO, certainly from the Chief Financial Officer there and the former Associate Deputy Minister, to improve the relationship. There was a recognition of what had happened in the past.
So Global Affairs came into a process that was improving.
Our involvement now with the machinery-of-government change is another step forward. We’re absolutely taking what we’re hearing from the committee this evening and keeping that in mind as we continue our work with the secretariat and between our two departments to make sure that we continue to be in a situation where we can say Canada is meeting its obligations, which is where we are today and where we will continue to be going forward.
The Chair: Senator C. Deacon, have you reached a level of comfort?
Senator C. Deacon: I think that will come with time. I still think it’s amazing that we have had to spend so much time on this issue, and it wasn’t resolved by government public servants well before today. We weren’t aware that there was any resolution on the horizon; we certainly never heard it from any of the testimony.
A level of comfort will have to build with time and a lot of transparency. Thank you.
Senator Surette: I’m encouraged by your answers. I don’t want to be too critical, but I still see an issue with the governance part of this. If I were on the commission, it would almost be that I would have to be forced to sign the contract with DFO in order to access that money from DFO.
Saying it in a different way, what would happen if there were an issue with the quality of the program? If the commission has the ultimate responsibility, what are their levers to solve the problem afterward? Would it be to just not sign the contract with DFO?
Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that question.
Based upon the testimony this evening and what we have heard from Great Lakes Fishery Commission secretariat staff, there haven’t been quality issues with the program. It’s been running for 60-plus years, and those issues haven’t come up.
Looking forward, we need to be alive to all sorts of possibilities. I do think having Global Affairs Canada involved, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs as the lead minister responsible for the commission, and — I’ll talk about myself in the third person now — having a GAC official as part of the commission also helps.
So there are structures in place to avoid what would be a very serious situation. What I’m encouraged by is that it hadn’t been the issue when looking back at the history.
So I’m confident, again, knowing Regional Director General Mitchell and her team, and seeing the dedication, professionalism and commitment present, it won’t be a problem in the future.
The Chair: Thank you all, senators, for the questions and our witnesses for your testimony and answers this evening. It’s been a very informative session. It has been a major issue for our committee over the past few months and even longer than that.
We hope that the end result of the transfer is what everybody wants in order to make this work. So we wish you well with that. We reserve the right to call you back if we need to do that at some future time.
(The committee adjourned.)