Fisheries Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 18 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and by expressing gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to continue its study on the review of the Fisheries Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members may participate in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application, but I think everyone is here in the room today.

Before we continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. The measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters. You will also see a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

Pursuant to our routine motions, I would like to advise committee members that all witnesses appearing virtually today have successfully completed the required technical testing.

I would just like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are 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 choose the appropriate channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room wishing to be recognized must raise their hands. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated speaking order. Thank you for your patience.

With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses we have here today.

We have Kent Spencer, aboriginal affairs adviser, and Mr. Scott Coultish, who is appearing here as well.

We're going to start with opening statements from the witnesses for five minutes or less, starting with Scott Coultish.

[Barry Coultish, Fishery Officer (Retired), As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My focus will be on the law enforcement barriers faced by fishery officers.

Thank you to all members of this committee for taking the time and having interest in improving the DFO, particularly the conservation and protection directorate, commonly known as C and P.

As we know, the DFO's mandate is large and complex, and it affects all Canadians in all regions of the country in one way or another. Hundreds of thousands of people in Canada participate in fishing and related cultural activities, and they depend on the DFO to properly manage, conserve and protect our fisheries resources.

Thousands of people across the country who work for the DFO share these same interests, values and goals each and every day they come to work. With regard to C and P—the face of the DFO to many fishers, first nations and the public at large—we are the uniformed law enforcement staff they see on the water, at the docks, on the riverbank, on the beach, at meetings and sometimes in court.

As with most law enforcement organizations in Canada, fishery officers garner—as do most police and other law enforcement officers—an increased level of respect because of their law enforcement mandate, profile and responsibility to treat everyone with respect and fairness. Unfortunately, the DFO as a whole has a lower level of trust because of what is seen as manipulation from high-profile politics, the ever-changing management at senior levels in the DFO, questionable science in the eyes of the public, exclusion from decision-making, backroom deals, and a lack of understanding and response to conflicting interests—first nations versus industry or recreational fisheries and so on. This has resulted in the erosion of trust and confidence in the DFO.

In my 32 years of service, I served under seven prime ministers and 18 ministers of Fisheries and Oceans. The changes and impacts that the DFO faces with each change of government and senior administration reverberate for months, if not years. These changes in leadership, staffing, policy directions, program funding, resource allocation, communication, priorities and settings can have and have had disruptive influences on the DFO and on C and P. Consistency is a pipe dream under these circumstances.

However, the compliance and enforcement expectations of the fishing public, first nations, stakeholders, and the fishing industry and the public at large haven't changed. They expect C and P to protect the fisheries resources, to act in a professional manner, to be free from political influence, to always be unbiased in compliance and enforcement actions, and to build and maintain trust with all. It significantly affects C and P's ability to provide compliance and enforcement in the field when confrontation and refusal to comply is now being seen as a rite of passage for many individuals and groups.

Fishery officers are the true face of the DFO. It is well known that police and law enforcement garner the highest level of trust and respect from the public when compared to government agencies. The DFO needs to capitalize on this trend and to have fishery officers engaging with the public and stakeholders at every opportunity. C and P needs to work and to be perceived to work at arm's length from the politics and decisions that are seen as being made by Ottawa behind closed doors and using flawed science. These are words that, if you look on the Internet, you will see a lot. C and P can have a functional relationship with fisheries planning and harvest while at the same time having a direct line report to the national C and P directorate, managed by law enforcement professionals.

There are several issues in particular. If asked, I have some advice on the idea of integrated resource management planning and fishery notices; on the national fisheries intelligence service, which I was involved in the development of back in 2011; and on major case management as an investigative tool in the DFO. Also, I believe that the undercover covert operations group that I managed in the Pacific region needs to be expanded. I can discuss that or go over it a bit if asked questions.

That's my presentation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Coultish.

Next we'll go to Mr. Spencer for five minutes or less.

[Kent Spencer, Aboriginal Affairs Adviser (Retired), As an Individual]

Thank you, folks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

You have my background about who I am. My presentation today is going to talk specifically about the field officer and some of the issues that arise.

In my various positions, enforcement has been a significant part of my job in a lot of ways. Some of the people I used to deal with were first nations, with recreational and commercial fishermen. The issue, for a lot of the enforcement folks nowadays, is focused more on first nations fisheries simply because, in the other two fisheries, we have acts and regulations that govern the execution of those fisheries, that specifically lay out what a fisherman can and can't do.

When we get to the first nations fisheries, or the FSC—the food, social and ceremonial—fisheries, the legislation is more ambiguous, and implementations of any charges are based on legal opinion. First nations individuals are treated differently from recreational and commercial fishermen simply because of their right to fish for food.

The way the situation works now in the Pacific region and in the marine areas is that if a first nations individual is found in an investigation to have violated their communal licence, an investigation must be completed. This may take anywhere from 100 to maybe 1,000 hours of investigative time. This includes getting search warrants and accumulating statements—all those things put together. This is submitted to the Department of Justice for review. After that, it usually takes between four months and two years for a decision on whether charges will go ahead.

However, the key factor in moving ahead with charges is based on support from the first nations chief and council. If they support it, then the DFO will move forward on charges. If not, in most cases, charges are never put forward. As a consequence, fishery officers are not willing to put the time and effort into building a case for which charges won't be approved.

There are other instances in which we have pieces of legislation that are contrary to each other. We have the indigenous protected and conserved area, which is an ability of a first nation, of its own accord, to pick out a piece of territory within its area and make it a conserved area. What this means is that it now keeps out all fishing activity within the area. The DFO recognizes the IPCAs, but it does not make changes in its fishing plans to accommodate them. Therefore, we have situations in which commercial fishermen go into areas that have been declared IPCAs, and the first nations chase them out of the areas, claiming they're closed.

There's another incident I'm aware of in which the first nation went on its own authority, seized commercial crab gear in an area that was an FSC-only area and brought the gear back to its reserve. This occurrence is still under investigation.

I'd just like to go to the conclusion at this point. This is from the field personnel.

First nations fisheries are difficult for fishery officers to enforce for a number of reasons. The FSC regulations or the conditions of the communal licence are ambiguous. Placing an FSC charge requires an inordinate amount of work to develop a file to provide to the Department of Justice for approval to move forward. In most cases, charge approval is granted only if the chief and council will approve charges against their own members, but this does not happen often. Fishery officers are unlikely to start an investigation if support from the chief and council will not occur.

When there's a situation in which the IPCA and DFO programs clash, fishery officers are not likely to try to get involved, because there's no clear definition of what they should be doing. There's also a lack of resources, both monetarily and personnel-wise, to properly monitor FSC fisheries and off-loading sites. They need more funding and more personnel.

Finally, if some of these issues are not addressed, the department will lose complete control of the FSC fishery, which will lead to conflicts and violence with other user groups. More importantly, the lack of control will lead to significant negative impacts to the fisheries resource for all user groups, including first nations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spencer.

That concludes our opening remarks.

We're going to go into the first round of questioning, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for coming today.

I'll start with Mr. Spencer.

You spoke of ambiguous regulations. Are C and P people familiar with all the rights and reconciliation agreements that have been formulated over the last few years and were supposed to have been gazetted, but oftentimes were not gazetted? Do you think officers have the familiarity with the RRAs that they should?

[Kent Spencer]

In most cases, yes, the people I know are familiar with what's going on with the reconciliation agreements.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Where does the ambiguity arise?

[Kent Spencer]

The ambiguity arises.... Basically, there aren't too many reconciliation agreements on the west coast right now. There are a number ongoing, which have been worked through, but there's not a lot of detail in the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations. It puts the emphasis back on the communal licence, and there's some ambiguity within the communal licences because of court cases that have happened and the changes to the communal licences.

More work has to be done with the communal licences. When I say “more work”, that basically means starting again and having a discussion with the groups about licensing, about all their activities and the whole nine yards. It's a big undertaking.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

We've had C and P personnel tell us that their job has become really difficult over the last 10 years, and you spoke of the ambiguity in the regulations. Where does this leave the power of the Fisheries Act to carry out its number one mandate, which is conservation of the resource?

[Kent Spencer]

This is where it gets very difficult.

First nations have the first kick at the cat, if you will, or the first right to harvest fish for FSC. The issue then is when and how much they can harvest, especially if we have low runs. It's hard for C and P to enforce something when it's not specifically defined.

We can try to say, “You can harvest so many pieces of fish”, but if the person goes over that, it's difficult for us to charge, in the sense that maybe they'll make the argument that the extra fish is needed for additional people within the community and they need the food to survive.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but it makes it very difficult for a fishery officer, who needs to be able to know what is right and what is wrong in order to enforce the act.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

If the act is not being enforced, there are ambiguous regulations and whatnot, and it's leading to the demise of the resource, it's going to affect first nations and non-first nations alike, isn't it?

[Kent Spencer]

It is, absolutely.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

At the end of the day, do you think we should somehow be having a collaborative approach, or should we have everything carved in stone and let the act do its work?

[Kent Spencer]

I think we need to have a lot more discussions with first nations to establish what their true requirements are and to know what they're going to want. They're not going to be able to get it all, because they have to share the resource with other nations as well.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Coultish, there seems to be a lack of enforcement of regulations over the last few years. Do you think there is politics at play? What's the effect on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing?

[Barry Coultish]

In fact, I watched one of the previous sessions and your comment in particular about the Fisheries Act, whether it needed a lot of touching up and so on. My answer would probably be no.

The act and the regulations are pretty clear. Where it starts to get a little bit messy is with much of the first nations fisheries, but this applies to the commercial and recreational as well, when we negotiate and the department determines harvest limit levels and so on. Particularly with the aboriginal fishery, when the department wants to sit down and negotiate with individual bands and there has been a determination on harvest levels to ensure conservation—we'll call it salmon on the Pacific coast, where we are—they are the first group to get under food, social and ceremonial.

The idea is that we need to establish that under a harvest agreement, it includes a quota, it includes numbers. Every other fishery—recreational fishery, commercial fishery—is pretty stringent when it comes to allocation, and I would say pretty accurate.

When it comes to some of the first nations fisheries and some of the individual bands that look at it, I don't believe there's a whole lot of confidence in the organization on numbers. As for the allocation of, for instance, a catch on an aboriginal fisheries and communal licence, in which it says that the band is to harvest 35,000 pieces, the band.... Many of them have their own people out there, and they'll get numbers. However, there are a lot who don't. Those numbers that come back, or don't come back, constantly create a management issue when it comes down to it, and conservation is the number one concern.

From a law enforcement perspective, this was my comment about integrated resource fishery, or management fisheries. It doesn't matter whether it's a commercial, recreational or first nations fishery, C and P are the ones out there to enforce the closures. If we've got a band or individuals exceeding quotas, and we can prove it, we're going to be the ones out there enforcing that.

The people who we're going to be relying on are our managers, who are making the decisions that there is a harvestable amount and how much can be harvested. If we end up taking people to court, the managers have to come and be able to substantiate that, because the DOJ looks at them as being excellent witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Coultish, we're well over time here. I hope you can wrap up.

[Barry Coultish]

There are some issues, but the law is good. It just needs to be applied.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Small.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Klassen for six minutes.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Coultish, you talked about erosion and mistrust within the DFO after 18 ministers, I think you said, in I'm not sure how many years, but in a number of years.

[Barry Coultish]

That's in 32 years.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Do you think the ministers have stayed within the Fisheries Act? Have they all followed the same direction, or were there discrepancies in how the ministers were dealing with the act?

[Barry Coultish]

Well, I would hope that anybody coming into the position has a genuine interest in the Department of Fisheries and the people who work for it—and ultimately the people in Canada who are associated would benefit from that.

I've never seen one that I would say didn't have an interest. Of course, out of the 18 ministers, I believe some were more efficient than others. At the end of the day, though, they rely a great deal on the people who work in DFO at senior levels to educate them and bring them up to speed. They also bring in their own people at senior levels, and those people bring an influence.

Let's face it: Every one of you represents a constituency, and some of them have greater interest in fishing activities than others. They will call you with interests within the fishery and will explain things that are going on. They influence, ultimately, some decisions and some things that occur within the management of that fishery.

What happens is that, when you see these things occur, it's kind of like walking on a fast treadmill going straight. At times it's great, but all of a sudden you get bounced. Decisions are made that reverberate all through your organization.

What we're truly looking for—and I said this back in 2012, when I testified at the Cohen commission—is some level of consistency within C and P. That's in DFO, absolutely, but within C and P, we have to be insulated from the politics. If we're going to be looked upon as accredited—and we want to be an accredited law enforcement organization—we have to be insulated from political decisions.

Ultimately, we see ourselves as the people who are out there. Decisions are made about closures and about other things, but we're protecting the resource and representing the organization to the public when it comes down to those decisions. We're the greatest communicators of DFO policy.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Okay. Thank you so much.

You also talked about backroom deals, and I'm wondering if you can give an example of what you've seen as backroom deals.