Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Peter German]

Thank you. I understand the question.

Yes, there have been charges. As far as I'm aware, there was at least one fine of somewhere in the area of $175,000. I'd have to confirm the exact amount. It's not that nothing was being done, but that's where I get into this issue of how it became a cost of doing business. In talking to other legitimate processors, I was basically told that the word on the street is, hey, it's just a cost of doing business; we're going to keep doing it.

It's not necessarily that there wasn't work taking place. It's that we're not seeing results because of the fine. No one's going to jail, so to speak.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

You also mentioned, as far as money laundering goes and with the quota and the licences.... In British Columbia, in real estate, for example, there are a lot of instances, or at least talk, of individuals from foreign countries who want to get their money out of that country using real estate, by parking their money and using real estate as a vehicle.

Is that what you believe is happening with some of these quotas and licences as well?

[Peter German]

At the time I looked at it, that was the context. That's correct. We refer to that as the Vancouver model, so to speak, in that people—not necessarily criminal—are trying to move money out of countries that have exchange controls and so forth, through underground banking systems.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

You also mentioned your past with the RCMP as a prosecutor. Can you explain the relationship?

We talked to some frontline DFO officers who didn't feel they were sufficiently supported by the RCMP when they were out doing their job in certain high-risk situations, or they felt that the RCMP weren't always willing to get involved in certain circumstances, potentially because the law was too grey.

Can you talk about the interrelationships and the dynamics between DFO, the RCMP and prosecutors?

[Peter German]

There are actually two different issues there. One is the prosecution side, and one is that co-operation with other law enforcement, because the prosecutors, of course, are quite separate from law enforcement.

Oftentimes, I think the issue with prosecutors is that the federal agents don't necessarily see many fisheries cases, so they're not that familiar with it. The fisheries officers know more about it than they do, in terms of the technical knowledge, so that can be a bit of a problem.

In terms of the RCMP support, I can't speak for the RCMP. Generally speaking, law enforcement agencies get along very well with each other. If someone says that they need support in terms of physical support, oversight or whatever, usually that's not a problem. It could be a lack of resources on the part of the RCMP when they can't spare three people for a night surveillance with fisheries. There could be a lot of different circumstances like that.

I would think that's something you would want to see raised within both organizations, so that people come to a meeting of minds in terms of co-operation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn.

For our last questioner, we're going to Mr. Morrissey for three minutes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I have a question for Mr. Fox.

Thank you for the thoughtful, knowledgeable testimony you gave in your opening statement on habitat, because when the original act was being discussed, there was a lot of push-back that habitat restoration had to occur right within the site or as close as possible. This was an area that caused a lot of concern.

Could you briefly tell the committee why the government would get push-back on ensuring that habitat that was destroyed or interfered with should be replaced right at the site versus the option you put forward, which I agree with? You're the second one to give similar testimony on that. It seems to be a very practical way of dealing with it that would not harm any fish species overall.

Could you answer briefly? I have a question for Mr. German.

[Leigh Fox]

There's an intuitive element to it. If we impact here, let's restore here. That doesn't necessarily mean that the best opportunity for restoration is right beside the site. If we're talking about fish habitat outcomes—and everybody on this committee, and I think more broadly, wants to see better fish habitat outcomes—analyzing what's been done, reflecting on that and looking at where the opportunities are is the way forward.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you. It's important for the committee to have that knowledge testimony on the record.

I have a question for Mr. German.

You've been in protection and enforcement for some time. Often we hear conflicting advice that somebody told fishery officers to “back off”. Are there reasons for when, from time to time, superiors would not proceed with an action or a rapidly occurring situation?

Are there other factors that may lead somebody who's superior to give direction to not proceed at that time, to protect other evidence or cases, or for the protection of the officers at the time? Could you opine on that for the committee?

[Peter German]

Certainly, I think that's quite possible. If you're a supervisor, you're responsible for your people. That's number one. If you think they're going into harm's way, that they may not have the necessary tools to deal with something, or that they could mess up the evidence and that sort of thing, yes, you would say that you have to rethink this or that you're not going to go down that road.

Just to say that you're not going to enforce certain areas because you don't like enforcing them is probably a stretch.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. German.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrissey. That concludes our first panel.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for appearing today and for your testimony. It's going to be very helpful as we finalize our report and recommendations for how the Fisheries Act can be updated going forward.

I'm going to briefly suspend before we welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For interpretation, those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the second panel. We have Adam Burns, assistant deputy minister, fisheries and harbour management; Rachelle Duval, director, domestic fisheries policy; Kate Ladell, director general, ecosystems management; Peter Lambertucci, national chief enforcement officer; and Bernard Vigneault, director general, ecosystems science directorate.

We are going to have one opening statement, from Mr. Burns, for five minutes or less.

[Adam Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Adam Burns. As mentioned, I'm the assistant deputy minister of fisheries and harbour management at DFO.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which I speak is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

I would also like to recognize the diligent work of this committee thus far in the study. Your commitment to hearing from and exploring the perspectives of so many who are invested in the sustainable use and future of Canada's fisheries is greatly valued and appreciated.

This current examination of the act is vital to informing the department's work. This includes supporting the sustainable management of Canadian fisheries and the health of our aquatic ecosystems, while ensuring indigenous and coastal communities continue to prosper from our fish and seafood sector.

I would like to reaffirm that the department is always listening. We recognize the unique challenges that Canadian fisheries are facing today, including environmental impacts from climate change, market shocks and instability, and social changes related to demographic issues, to name but a few.

Through the ongoing process of strengthening relationships with harvesters, partners and stakeholders, the department continues to work to ensure our efforts are both responsive to the current challenges and taking a long-term view to support fisheries for future generations.

As we continue to implement the suite of important changes to the act that were put in place in 2019, I want to highlight some of the work the department is currently advancing under the act to better protect fish and fish habitat and to support a vibrant, sustainable Canadian fishing sector.

First, we're working to ensure that the benefits of our fisheries flow to the intended coastal Canadians. We're doing this through a review of our east coast inshore regulations to strengthen the application of owner-operator policies, through policy development to support new entrants to the fishery, and by exploring options to address concerns of foreign ownership. We're also engaging on a fishery-by-fishery basis to support the modernization of west coast commercial fisheries.

In addition, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of all national and regional licensing policies and processes to identify priority areas where streamlining and simplifying the rules will provide meaningful benefits to the fish and seafood sector.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also actively developing digital solutions and reviewing processes to improve licensing and data management in the fisheries sector.

The department has been advancing a number of measures under its United Nations declaration act action plan through existing policy tools such as co-management agreements, reconciliation agreements and joint management plans, and using policy directions such as the sustainable fisheries framework.

Next, in support of the Building Canada Act and actions to accelerate major project reviews and approvals, we are improving regulatory efficiency and decision-making while continuing to protect fish and fish habitat in a way that respects indigenous rights and advances reconciliation. Specifically, we are streamlining the review of higher-risk projects while simplifying approaches and requirements for low-risk and routine projects. These steps will help to reduce the project review times and ensure that decisions on major projects can be completed in under two years.

Finally, we are taking action and doing the science needed to support decisions in alignment with the 2019 changes to the Fisheries Act.

This includes collecting more data on fish stocks; dedicated effort to set new reference points for sustainable stock management and rebuilding plans; performing new stock assessments; and studying freshwater habitats to inform policy and regulatory decisions.

In addition, we use the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat process to provide peer-reviewed science advice to inform decision makers.

Despite these advancements, we recognize that continuous improvement is always possible. As such, we await this committee's final report and recommendations with great interest. The insights and recommendations of the report will be instrumental in guiding the continued modernization of the Fisheries Act, ensuring that it reflects the values and priorities of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Burns.

With that, we'll jump right into the first round of questioning, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming here today.

Mr. Burns, we've had a 25% drop in the real GDP for the landed value of fish in Canada since 2010. During the same period, Norway has seen a 450% increase. Is that the fault of the Fisheries Act?

[Adam Burns]

There are a variety of factors that influence the landed value of fish stocks, including the species mix that is caught. I'm not familiar with the statistics you're putting forward in terms of Norway's landed values, but that may in fact be part of the consideration.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Considering that Norway has a coastline that's one-eighth the length of Canada's, would you say that's alarming?

[Adam Burns]

Again, I'm not familiar with those statistics and would certainly want to look into those in more detail.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Come on. You know it.

I heard you mention protecting fish and fish habitat. You saw the new report that came out of the marine institute at Memorial University, highlighting that harp seals, which, I might add, are responsible for only about 50% of the pinniped predation in Canada, considering that there are grey seals, hooded seals, harbour seals, sea lions and whatnot.... We could be at a factor of 50% more fish taken by pinnipeds in Canada than what harvesters land, 50 times more than what harvesters land.

What are we protecting the habitat from? How are we going to grow our fish stocks if we don't deal with the elephant in the room?

[Adam Burns]

With respect to harp seal and grey seal harvesting—the primary species on the east coast, as I'm sure members know—the department has, for a number of years now, set very flexible management measures to enable significant harvest. Unfortunately, there is again a global market situation here.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

In all honesty, tell us the truth right now. Do you think that there will ever be a seal harvest that, in a meaningful way, puts Canadian seal products in foreign markets again? Honestly, do you think we'll ever see it?

[Adam Burns]

The department and the Government of Canada are actively engaged in trying to reduce the market barriers globally. Clearly, access to markets and having viable markets are the critical pieces in order for a harvest—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Why did the Prime Minister remove Canadian seal products from the discussions with the EU in June, when they were on the agenda? Why did he himself remove that?

[Adam Burns]

I can't speak to those negotiations. I'm—