Fisheries Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Yes, that's fine, but that's not where we're going. That's why I found some—I'll be candid—conflict in your testimony and the answers you've been giving here, in those specific areas in which the bill could be improved to ensure that this does not occur.

There will always be court decisions that will go in a particular direction and will then influence further action on infractions. That's just the way this country has always worked under the Supreme Court and the letter of the law. It concerns me when, without a lot of background reference, one keeps throwing in the terminology that politics—this kind of politics—was involved.

I'll close. I know I'm over time. I think you clarified that the politics you were referencing was internal within an organization, internal in the wharf talk and a whole host of areas.

[Barry Coultish]

What the public sees—

Yes. I'm sorry.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrissey.

Our last questioner is Mr. Deschênes.

You may go ahead for two and a half minutes, Mr. Deschênes.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Coultish, I'd like more information on two events you described in your written submission, one in 2006 and one in 2014. You say that, in 2006, you had some involvement in an investigation where 1.9 million pounds of salmon was discovered. Talk a bit about what happened, if you would. What happened in the end? Why weren't charges laid in that case?

[Barry Coultish]

This was probably one of the most identifiable cases. On the Fraser River and on the south coast of British Columbia, there is a large food, social and ceremonial fishery by first nations. In particular, on the Fraser River, from the mouth of the river and all the way up the river, a number of bands fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes—

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

I have just a minute and a half, so please get to the facts.

[Barry Coultish]

We entered into an investigation to try to determine the amount of food, social and ceremonial salmon that was being kept in cold storage facilities. These are generally large facilities where commercial fishermen and companies will often store their fish as well.

We conducted this investigation over a number of months and found that there were about 1.9 million pounds, or approximately 358,000 pieces, in cold storage, kept in a variety of conditions, but mostly cut into small packages, vacuum packed and so on. Much of it was not marked. Some of it was. It was owned by a number of people, most of it by a small number of individuals. Most of them were first nations individuals, some owning thousands of pounds of this product.

Some individuals had a history with our organization, C and P, for suspected activity with the idea of sale, and this was the concern we had with this large volume of fish. It costs money to process this fish. Who's paying the money if this fish is actually food fish, if you want to call it FSC?

We asked senior management in the region for additional funding to track it the following year. We were denied. We were turned down. As a result, we were no longer able to continue the investigation to determine who owned the fish, where it went and, particularly, where it was going throughout these communities if it was FSC fish.

We did an audit in the summer of 2006. We found that 70% of this product had gone, with no way of tracking it.

I'll tie this in to major case management. If, at the time, we had had the ability to conduct these investigations with the use of major case management principles, and if funding had been provided to the region through the C and P directorate, we would probably have been able to continue this investigation.

Things may have changed. I'm hoping they have. In this particular case, because this very large investigation was turned down, it affected our ability and interest to do large-scale FSC investigations afterward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Coultish. We're well over time.

That finishes our time for today. Of course, if anything came up in questions today that you want to share and you weren't able to get to, please submit it in writing. I can tell that both Mr. Coultish and Mr. Spencer have a wealth of knowledge, so if there's anything we weren't able to speak to that you'd like to share with the committee, please do so in writing. This will be very helpful as we finalize our report and the recommendations that are going to flow from it.

With that, I want to thank you very much for appearing today. We're going to briefly suspend while we welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order.

I want to start by making a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please be sure to mute yourself when you're not speaking.

Interpretation services are available. Those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screens, of either floor, English or French. Those in the room can insert their earpieces and select the appropriate channel.

This is a reminder that all comments will be addressed through the chair.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses here today from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We have Mr. Peter Lambertucci, national chief enforcement officer. Welcome back.

We have Paul Didham, supervisor, major case management, Newfoundland region, by video conference. We have Neil Jensen, chief of recruitment, training and standards, Pacific region, by video conference as well.

We have Trevor Lushington, fishery officer, and Rae McCleave, program officer and on-site training coordinator, also by video conference. We also have Mr. Geoff Thorburn, fishery officer and acting habitat coordinator, Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast.

I understand that most of you would like to make a short opening statement. I will allow it with the understanding that we may extend this hour by about 10 to 15 minutes if members want to have their full questioning time.

We'll start with the opening statement from Mr. Lambertucci.

[Peter Lambertucci, National Chief Enforcement Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. I am pleased to be here today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would like to thank the committee for their interest in the work of conservation and protection and for inviting fishery officers to appear before you today.

I am incredibly proud of the work done by all our officers across this country, from coast to coast to coast. Recognizing that today is my third appearance before the committee in recent weeks, and the value in having frontline conservation and protection officers before you as witnesses, I will keep my opening remarks very brief. That will allow the officers more time to read their opening remarks. The committee can also maximize the time they have for officers' testimony.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lambertucci.

Now we will hear from Mr. Jensen.

[Neil Jensen, Chief of Recruitment, Training and Standards, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak here for the first time.

I'm Neil Jensen, the chief of recruitment, training and standards for the Pacific region. I've had a diverse and extensive career in the Pacific region, serving as a general duty officer and supervisor in the B.C. interior, the south coast and the lower Fraser, as well as in the B.C. aquaculture enforcement unit, before becoming a regional manager at headquarters.

Over that time span, I've seen a lot, including many ups and downs in the evolution of the conservation and protection program into what it is today. I've enjoyed many experiences and achievements over the years. I still love the job as much as when I first joined many years ago.

You'll hear many interesting insights from my colleagues today, and I look forward to answering questions, but I want to highlight two key topics of interest. First, in revising the Fisheries Act, a top priority should be to enable better traceability to prevent fish laundering. Currently, proving or getting charges approved for larger investigations into illegal fish sales is almost impossible. Stronger traceability would be a game-changer for officers and a major deterrent for fish trafficking. This is a significant issue in the Pacific region and needs to be urgently addressed.

My second point is about fishery officers in relation to their peace officer status. For many years, the Criminal Code's definition of fishery officers as peace officers has been unclear, creating confusion about when they hold that status while on duty. Recent opinions leave officers uncertain about liability coverage and legal authority. At times, they may be viewed as private citizens, despite being armed and in uniform. Other times, they're acknowledged as full peace officers. It's not something that can just be turned on and off with a switch. Officers do not feel supported in their authority and protections. Uncertainty could cause hesitation at critical moments, leading to harm or other negative outcomes. Clear, consistent peace officer status is essential for officer safety and public trust.

That concludes my brief statement, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from Mr. Lushington.

[Trevor Lushington, Fishery Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good afternoon. My name is Trevor Lushington. I've been a law enforcement officer for 32 years in total, 25 with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I'm here today to speak about barriers in law enforcement in regard to the Fisheries Act.

I'd like to share with the group that in the last five years, there have been significant barriers presented to us in law enforcement. Our work as fishery officers has gotten a lot more dangerous. Conflicts with fishery officers have increased in the work we're doing. Such conflict has resulted in our having less impact in protecting the resources.

We've looked at what has happened in the last five years. Now I would like to take a second to look at what's happened in the last five months. We've seen a significant change. We are able to demonstrate that now with the work that we've done and that's being posted and shared with you guys.

We have new communication lines with our enforcement chief that go directly to the Minister of Fisheries. We've seen a number of pieces of equipment that have been handed over to fishery officers to make our work much safer. These include drones and body-worn cameras. We have more operational vessels that we're able to use and put in key strategic areas, where they need to be and when they need to be.

In closing, I've been following the work this committee has done. Honestly, I'd like to say thank you to each and every one of you. You are making our job better. As for the boards you're trying to lift up to see what's underneath, we appreciate it. It is going to make our job better. We're protecting a resource, a resource that I honestly care a lot about.

I'd like to leave you with a short comment I remember from when I was a younger fishery officer. It was said by a judge in a courtroom in Shelburne: These fisheries are the lifeblood of our communities. They mean a lot to us.

I'll go right back to the beginning and say that I look forward to hearing some questions from you. I cut my five minutes down because I wanted to hear what you had for questions as we reach the end of your session.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

With that, we will now hear from Mr. Thorburn.

[Geoff Thorburn, Fishery Officer and Acting Habitat Coordinator, Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm here to provide a frontline perspective on challenges fishery officers face in enforcing the Fisheries Act across Canada. My comments reflect daily operational realities for officers in the field.

Number one is the lack of charge approval for files involving indigenous harvesters. One of the most consistent obstacles is in obtaining charge approval for investigations involving unauthorized harvest by indigenous individuals or groups. While we respect treaties and rights-based fisheries, some activities clearly fall outside established agreements, jeopardizing the conservation and protection of fish for all Canadians, including other indigenous peoples. However, the threshold for prosecution is so high that many files do not receive charge approval despite months and years of effort by fishery officers. This creates inconsistent enforcement and undermines our officers' abilities to apply the law fairly and uniformly.

Number two is the lack of traceability in the supply chain. Canada does not have a full end-to-end traceability system for fish moving from harvest to market or for accurate reporting of food, social and ceremonial catch. As a result, illegally harvested fish, including non-saleable FSC product, continue to enter the commercial supply chain, but we have little ability to confirm origin. This harms legitimate harvesters, including indigenous, commercial and recreational fishermen; encourages black market activity; and increases food safety and export risk for Canadian markets.

Number three is organized crime exploiting fisheries, as well as the need for peace officer status. We see increased involvement of organized crime groups using indigenous harvesters and their rights as a means to launder illegal fish. Individuals from indigenous communities who participate in this laundering take food away from their own people and, in the long term, the necessary conservation and protection measures to ensure a moderate livelihood. Our officers often lack the investigative resources, the inter-agency communication and, most importantly, the support needed from indigenous communities to confront these networks.

To combat organized crime, fishery officers require peace officer status. This will allow us to enforce legislation outside the confines of the Fisheries Act, providing needed tools to meet organized crime head-on. Our current enforcement structure is not built to counter the sophistication and scale of our criminal groups active in the fisheries sector. Therefore, we need peace officer status to give us the tools to reach outside the authority of the Fisheries Act.

Number four is the insufficient number of officers, limited budget and chronic underpayment. Fishery officers cover a vast geographic area with staffing levels that have not kept pace with modern pressures, including rights-based fisheries, commercial expansion and habitat complexity. Many detachments operate with minimum staff, leaving capacity for proactive patrols or complex investigations difficult. In addition to being understaffed, fishery officers remain significantly underpaid relative to the risks and responsibilities of the job.

We work armed in remote locations and harsh conditions, and we frequently deal with organized crime, dangerous vessels and high-conflict encounters. However, compensation often aligns more closely with such trades as window cleaners or fish hatchery technicians, who face none of the statutory safety or enforcement responsibilities carried by fishery officers. For an officer to earn full field-level officer pay, it takes seven years. Fishery officer trainees require three years of training prior to graduating as full-fledged fishery officers and four more years to get paid a top-level GT-04 officer wage. This is the longest training period of any enforcement agency in Canada.

Number five is with regard to examples of setbacks when changes to the Fisheries Act are made without foresight and ideas for habitat compliance in the future. In 2012, changes to the Fisheries Act shifted protection from all fish and fish habitat to only those supporting economically viable fisheries, forcing fishery officers to prove both commercial value and serious harm to fish and leaving many species without protection. Recent revisions since 2019 have restored protections for all fish and introduced tools like corrective measure orders, which allow proponents the opportunity to fix non-compliant activities.

However, officers still lack a timely, impactful way to address minor violations. One proposal is a licensing system to ensure that the work around fish-bearing waters is being carried out responsibly. Each licence would come with conditions of licence, much like those of a commercial fishery, allowing fishery officers to issue tickets for less serious non-compliance issues while having a more immediate impact, ensuring that the conditions of licence are complied with in a more timely manner.

Number six is the lack of direct communication between management and frontline officers. Many policy and operational decisions are made without meaningful input from the officers tasked with implementing them. This disconnect leads to policies that cannot be practically enforced, unclear operational expectations and inconsistent application of the act across regions. Frontline enforcement and management insights should be built into decision-making rather than added after the fact. Incidents such as those in southwest Nova Scotia, where officers were suspended and persecuted after an arrest for illegal elver fishing, are stark reminders to officers that there are limited protections from the political will of the day should enforcement action garner negative media attention.

In closing, we need more officers and support staff, as well as a vastly improved pay structure, peace officer status and the legal support to keep pace with the pressures on the resource and the complexity of the enforcement environment.

Finally, our agency is the oldest enforcement agency in Canada. We stand on the backs of the fishery officers who came before us. We need the recognition that we duly deserve as frontline enforcement officers. In the past two years, our support networks have missed the opportunity to ensure that we are recognized as frontline enforcement officers. We need our government's support to ensure that this year will not be the third.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Thorburn.

The last one we will hear from is Mr. McCleave.

[Rae McCleave, Program Officer, On-site Training Coordinator, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting us to testify today. It's my pleasure to be here to speak to the operational and legal challenges that fishery officers experience in enforcing the Fisheries Act.

My name is Rae McCleave. I have been a fishery officer with DFO for 25 years. Most of those years were spent as a frontline officer, field supervisor and, eventually, detachment supervisor in both the gulf and maritime regions. Prior to becoming a fishery officer, I was a deckhand on board a lobster fishing vessel in southwest Nova, in LFA 34, for five years. In addition to my current position, I'm on the national executive of the Union of Health and Environment Workers as regional vice-president for the Scotia-Fundy region.

Throughout this study, you've heard many allegations of fishery officers not enforcing the act. I hope my testimony can shed some light on the complexities of our work and balance your views.

First, let's face it: Doing more with less is not practical in our line of work. We used to have detachments with 10 or more officers. Now we try to operate with half that or less. Fishery officers cannot possibly respond to every complaint. We operate with limited resources, in terms of both finances and personnel, to protect Canada's fishery resources along the longest coastline in the world. The retention of personnel is an ongoing issue. It doesn't help matters that wages are based on a 1969 job description for glass-blowers. Once trained, new officers often decide to pursue alternative law enforcement careers with a federal or provincial law enforcement agency, which pays substantially more.

Fishery officers do not have a public safety mandate. While our uniform, duty belt and service weapon may lead the public to mistake us for police, fishery officers do not have the same powers as police. Our peace officer status is functionally limited to the performance of our duties under the act. We do not have the mandate, authorities or legal protections to act as peace officers in matters outside the Fisheries Act, such as physical altercations between harvesters on the water, possession of drugs or driving under the influence. Those are matters for the police of local jurisdiction to handle. If our conscience and personal morals bring us to act in a situation outside our mandate, we do so at our own risk—as simple citizens, with no guaranteed protection provided from DFO.

As fishery officers, we have vast inspection powers. Officers must apply these powers in a reasonable and lawful manner to ensure the integrity of the department and those who represent it. When we have reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, we investigate. As fishery officers, we use our discretion to decide the level of enforcement to engage in, ranging from education to warnings and full investigations, up to the laying of charges.

As Government of Canada law enforcement officers, we are bound by the strict authorities granted to us by the Fisheries Act and the Criminal Code. We must uphold the legal protections that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To bring charges forward, we must show the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, first, that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction—meaning that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the offence—and second, that it is in the public interest to prosecute. As you've already heard, PPSC determines this, not fishery officers.

This committee has heard allegations that fishery officers did not take action against potential illegal fish harvesting or that they failed to use information provided to them by members of the public, including industry. It needs to be clarified that although members of the public may not feel that the work is being done in relation to illegal fish harvesting, the actions that are taken cannot be shared with the public outside proceedings that have been put in front of the court. Doing so would be a severe violation of a person's charter rights, which we must uphold if there's to be any hope of achieving a successful prosecution.

Fishery officers enforce the act and the regulations. When it comes to licence conditions, they are imposed by DFO officials in the resource management branch. Insofar as those officials impose conditions that are within the legal authorities of section 22 of the fishery general regulations, and duly consult with impacted first nations when relevant, the licence conditions would be enforceable and actionable by fishery officers.

I hope this clarifies the operational and legal reality in which we operate. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. McCleave.

That concludes our opening remarks.

We'll jump into our first round of questioning.

Mr. Small, you have six minutes.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Didham, what's your current role with DFO?

[Paul Didham, Supervisor, Major Case Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I'm currently the supervisor for major case management within the Newfoundland and Labrador region.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

What types of cases do you investigate?

[Paul Didham]

Generally, I am involved in investigations that are just a bit more complex. They require more resources and more time. They're more in-depth types of investigations that general duty frontline officers within our detachments would not have the resources or ability to do.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Would you have investigated any fleet separation aspects covered by the Fisheries Act?