The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met to continue its study on the review of the Fisheries Act, hearing from retired and current Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) enforcement personnel, including Barry Coultish, Kent Spencer, Peter Lambertucci, Neil Jensen, Trevor Lushington, Geoff Thorburn, Rae McCleave, and Paul Didham.
Barry Coultish, a retired fishery officer, testified that the DFO suffers from low public trust due to perceived political manipulation, frequent changes in senior management, and questionable science, and he argued that the Conservation and Protection (C&P) directorate should operate at arm's length from political decisions to maintain credibility. He recommended expanding the undercover covert operations group and using major case management principles for large-scale investigations, citing a 2006 case where 1.9 million pounds of salmon in cold storage could not be fully investigated due to a lack of funding.
Kent Spencer, a retired aboriginal affairs adviser, stated that enforcing food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) fisheries is difficult because regulations are ambiguous, and that charges against First Nations individuals are often not approved by the Department of Justice unless the band's chief and council support them, which rarely happens. He warned that without addressing these issues, the department will lose control of the FSC fishery, leading to conflicts and resource depletion, and he called for more consultation with First Nations and increased funding and personnel.
Peter Lambertucci, National Chief Enforcement Officer, kept his remarks brief to allow frontline officers more time, noting that he is proud of the work of officers across the country and that he has appeared before the committee multiple times.
Neil Jensen, Chief of Recruitment, Training and Standards for the Pacific Region, identified two key priorities: enabling better traceability to prevent fish laundering, which he called a game-changer for enforcement, and clarifying fishery officers' peace officer status under the Criminal Code, as current uncertainty about their authority and liability could cause hesitation at critical moments and undermine officer safety.
Trevor Lushington, a fishery officer, reported that in the last five years, enforcement has become more dangerous and conflicts have increased, but that in the last five months, significant improvements have occurred, including new communication lines with the minister, drones, body-worn cameras, and more operational vessels. He noted that repeat offenders are common and that higher fines and licence suspensions are needed as deterrents, and he expressed concern about the pressure he felt from parliamentary affairs regarding his testimony, including an email suggesting his employment could be affected.
Geoff Thorburn, a fishery officer and acting habitat coordinator, listed several challenges: lack of charge approval for files involving Indigenous harvesters, often because band support is required; no end-to-end traceability for fish, allowing illegally harvested FSC product to enter the commercial supply chain; organized crime exploiting Indigenous rights to launder fish; insufficient officers, chronic underpayment, and a seven-year pay progression; and a disconnect between management and frontline officers. He recommended peace officer status, a licensing system for work around fish-bearing waters, and better legal support for officers.
Rae McCleave, a program officer and on-site training coordinator, clarified that fishery officers do not have a public safety mandate and that their peace officer status is limited to the Fisheries Act, meaning they act as private citizens in matters outside it. She explained that officers use discretion in enforcement and that charges require a reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest, as determined by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), and that the public may not see enforcement actions because of charter protections.
Paul Didham, Supervisor of Major Case Management for Newfoundland and Labrador, testified that he has investigated controlling agreements under the Fisheries Act but that investigations have not been successful, and that in the Jimmy Lee Foss case, he believed there was evidence of a controlling agreement. He noted that DFO's charge approval process differs from police agencies, where charges are laid before prosecution, and he suggested DFO would be better served by a similar model.
During the meeting, a motion was moved and agreed to requesting that Trevor Lushington provide the email exchange he referenced in his testimony to the committee.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.