Fisheries Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 20 of the House of Commons 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 express 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 commence its study on marine and coastal protections.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application, but I think everyone is attending in person today.

Before we continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, but particularly the interpreters. You will also notice 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 conducted the required technical testing.

The translation is not working. Maybe the clerk can give you a hand.

I want 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 who are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

Regarding interpretation, I hope it's working now. For those on Zoom, you can choose from floor, English or French at the bottom of your screen. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We thank the participants for their patience.

Before we get started, I want to remind members that our next meeting is going to be on Monday. We're going to hear from the minister and DFO officials on the subject matter of Bill C-15, clauses 553 to 570.

Very quickly, before we get started, members will have received a proposed budget for this. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the budget that's been circulated?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses today.

We have Dr. Alex Caveen participating by video conference from the University of Hull, and we have Professor Ray Hilborn from the University of Washington, who is also participating by video conference.

In person, from the BC Seafood Alliance, we have Grant Dovey, vice-president, and Katelyn Lindsay, commercial fisheries representative.

With that, we're going to start with the witnesses' opening statements for up to five minutes, starting with Dr. Caveen.

[Dr. Alex Caveen, Lecturer, University of Hull, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to present at this committee meeting.

I'm a lecturer in environmental governance from the University of Hull in the United Kingdom. I studied the planning of marine conservation zones, MCZs, in England for my Ph.D. research between 2010 and 2013. I'm currently investigating the governance incentives underpinning the management effectiveness of MCZs, on which this statement is based.

My Ph.D. research on the English MCZ process involved key-informant interviews with scientific experts and decision-makers, and participant observations of the stakeholder-informed planning process. The objectives of English MCZs were to protect representative broad-scale seabed habitats and species of conservation interest from human pressures.

The process was target-driven, with sites designated irrespective of whether the conservation features were deemed vulnerable to human disturbance. Most conservation objectives for MCZs were set to maintain the feature in its present condition, rather than recover the feature to an unknown baseline.

Monitoring of the designated features at a site level is necessary to judge whether objectives are being met. As of 2024, only 10% of U.K. MPAs have monitoring in place. For many MPAs, there's a lack of resources for conducting surveys at the require frequency and spatial scale to measure whether conservation objectives are being met.

Generally, the initial planning process of one and a half years was viewed as too rushed for the spatial scale at which many of the MCZs were being designated. It certainly did not allow enough time for adequate ecological evidence to be gathered from many of the sites, and the accuracy of broad-scale habitat maps was also questioned. Certain fishing representatives were also cynical of the target-driven process and the lack of clarity over what the MCZs were being designated to protect.

There have been 91 MCZs designated in three tranches between 2013 and 2019. Socio-economic impact assessments have been undertaken for all sites, and currently, management measures have been implemented in inshore MCZs designated within six nautical miles.

In 2025, the U.K. government ran a consultation on the management measures for 42 offshore MCZs. However, this consultation was criticized by industry for providing a binary choice of doing nothing or banning bottom trawling. The U.K. fishing industry had to oppose the ban, despite advocating for a pragmatic zonal approach to protect site features. Some of the offshore MCZs designated are more than 4,000 square kilometres, and that could have significant impacts on fisheries and offshore wind development if they restricted all human activities. Currently, three MCZs are highly protected across the whole site.

The U.K. government is currently facing ongoing campaigns from environmental organizations for more highly protected MPAs, with the main justification being that many recently designated MCZs have insufficient protections at site level.

The U.K. is also rapidly developing offshore wind sites to meet its net-zero emissions targets, with further new MPAs being discussed with regard to offsetting the potential biodiversity impacts of large offshore developments. The U.K. fishing industry is concerned that they will be essentially paying for the impacts of offshore wind development through the loss of more fishing grounds designated as MPAs.

It is therefore imperative that MPAs are designated within a wider framework of marine spatial planning, which is something that the MCZ process failed to do. This failure is still causing the U.K. fishing industry challenges with respect to ongoing uncertainty over site management measures and the perceived legitimacy of policy decisions being made.

However, I'd like to stress that there are examples of effective MPA governance in the U.K. for specific sites where the fishing industry and the conservation community have worked together to meet conservation objectives. A good example of a community-focused conservation initiative is out of the Lyme Bay MPA in the south of England.

Despite a ban on trawling, a study has shown that trawl landings have largely remained the same, with an increase in the value of static gear catches. An additional turnover of 2.2 million pounds was also realized for recreational dive operators and charter vessels during the three years after the closure. Annual monitoring is carried out by the University of Plymouth, and the conservation benefits have been significant.

From personal experience and as documented in the wider academic literature, building trust between industry and conservation stakeholders is key with respect to both the provision of data and the legitimacy of decision-making. The fishing industry has detailed knowledge and fine-scale plotter data from areas being fished, which can allow for more targeted conservation measures. If industry is also involved in objective setting and site design, this can lead to win-win situations for both fisheries and conservation, such as what has been achieved in Lyme Bay.

Within the context of the growing pressures on fishers' access to marine space, the impacts of environmental change and the need to balance marine conservation with food and energy security, any restriction of fishing needs to be justified by robust ecological evidence.

It is also imperative that consultation with stakeholders takes place at the point where their knowledge and data can influence the final management decision, not after a decision has been made or the scope of policy options reduced.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Dr. Caveen.

We're going to move on to our witnesses here in person. Perhaps we can connect with Professor Hilborn in the interim for him to go afterward.

With that, I'd like to hand the floor off to the BC Seafood Alliance for five minutes or less.

[Grant Dovey, Vice-President, BC Seafood Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Grant Dovey. I am a biologist who helps co-manage British Columbia's commercial fisheries. I'm joined here today by my colleague Katie Lindsay. Together we're representing the BC Seafood Alliance.

The BC Seafood Alliance represents commercial harvesters and processors across B.C. Our members represent an industry in B.C. that generates close to $1 billion annually and supports thousands of jobs in coastal communities. I'm also a member of the BC Seafood Alliance marine planning team, MPT, which includes industry members with more than 100 years of combined experience across all aspects of the fishing industry. We came together to provide practical, evidence-based advice to marine planning processes from people who work on the water and understand how these decisions play out in real life.

Today the greatest threat to commercial fishing in B.C. is not sustainability or stock health. It is the loss of access to fishing grounds from the scale and pace of marine protected area implementation. The largest initiative under way is the Northern Shelf bioregion, or NSB, marine protected area network. It spans roughly two-thirds of the B.C. coastline, from Campbell River to the Alaska border. B.C. is already a leader in marine conservation, with more than 35% of its marine waters conserved. That's based on ECCC data. The draft NSB zoning will have devastating economic impacts. It will result in job losses in coastal communities, and will contribute less than 0.3% to the national 30 by 30 targets.

The draft NSB zoning would cut off access to annual catch for key fisheries across large portions of the NSB by upwards of 20% to 50%. In 2020 the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture estimated that these impacts would amount to about $125 million a year in lost revenue and the loss of hundreds of harvesting jobs. Despite the scale of these impacts, there's been no updated comprehensive socio-economic impact analysis to assess what the current revised protocols and draft would mean for fishing families and coastal communities.

This is particularly frustrating because we know that a better approach is possible. In 2018 our marine planning team worked collaboratively with hundreds of fishers to help finalize zoning in the Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area. That process achieved hundreds of ecological and cultural objectives while mitigating impacts to key fishing grounds. It was recognized with an award from the CEO of Parks Canada.

The MPT attempted to bring that same collaborative, science-based approach to the NSB. In 2020 we consulted with more than 700 commercial fishing reps and put forward recommendations that met or exceeded all ecological targets while reducing impacts to fishing in the NSB by 75%. Unfortunately, that advice has not been incorporated, despite our best efforts over the last six years. We've essentially gone from awards to ignored.

I'll turn it over to my colleague Katie to speak to the human impacts of these.

[Katelyn Lindsay, Commercial Fisheries Representative, Underwater Harvesters Association, BC Seafood Alliance]

Thanks, Grant.

As Grant mentioned, my name is Katie Lindsay. I grew up in a fishing family on Vancouver Island. The seafood sector put a roof over my head, and today my family, like many others, lives with the uncertainty created by such marine protected area proposals as the Northern Shelf bioregion.

I want to be clear that our sector supports conservation. It is not optional for us. It is the foundation of our livelihoods. Our B.C. fisheries are recognized globally for sustainability and quality. We operate under rigorous management and industry-funded stock assessments, investing more than $9.5 million each year into science and management. Our fishing families are not just resource users; we are active investors in conservation.

Since the first draft of the Northern Shelf bioregion was released in 2019, I have seen the human impacts of this uncertainty first-hand. I have seen fifth-generation halibut fishermen walk away from the industry entirely. I have seen harvesters delay investments in both safety and maintenance. Young people hesitate to enter the sector, because they no longer see it as stable. This uncertainty is not just pushing people out. It's also preventing the next generation from coming in.

Families like mine want a sustainable fishing sector that supports jobs and food security in coastal B.C., especially as other resource-based jobs disappear and pressures grow from geopolitical instability and tariffs, but we can only do that with certainty that sustainable fishing can continue and that our access and livelihoods will not be put at risk in pursuit of 30 by 30 conservation targets.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

With that, we'll move to Professor Hilborn for five minutes or less.

[Professor Ray Hilborn, Professor, University of Washington, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

I am a professor at the school of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington, a former employee of Environment Canada, an elected member of the Royal Society of Canada and the author of over 300 peer-reviewed publications in the last six decades.

Let me begin by saying we should protect 100% [Technical difficulty—Editor] best reduce each threat. Marine ecosystems are protected not just by closing areas, but also by other effective conservation measures, as recognized by the convention on biodiversity and its 30% protection targets.

Oceans are different from land, and the effectiveness of closed areas differs. Human use on land destroys natural ecosystems by planting crops and building cities. Closing areas to agriculture and development is essential for protecting biodiversity on land.

Marine ecosystems differ because fishing does not eliminate plants or modify the base of the food chain. Most of the ecosystem is unchanged, and the primary impact is that the fish species are at lower abundance. Further, many of the species are highly mobile and swim in and out of the protected areas.

Globally, most marine biota is unaffected by fishing. Of the species that are impacted by fishing, more species of birds, mammals and turtles are increasing, rather than decreasing. Globally, in countries that manage their fisheries intensively, fish stocks are increasing, not declining.

Overfishing is harvesting harder than would produce a maximum potential yield. Canada does not have a problem with overfishing. Almost no potential yield is lost by fishing too hard. Certainly, there are many stocks that are depleted due to historical overfishing or environmental change, but these are now generally fished at very low rates.

The major potential threats to marine ecosystems come from climate change, fishing and pollution, such as oil spills and plastics. For coastal ecosystems, they come from terrestrial runoff of sediments and pollutants, and coastal development. The only one of these threats addressed by no-take areas is fishing. Further, with species distribution shifting with climate change, in no-take areas designed now, the species they are designed to protect will have moved.

Closing areas doesn't significantly reduce fishing pressure; it simply moves it. All of the advocacy for no-take areas uses a comparison of abundance inside closed areas to outside, yet outside is where the fishing effort has been moved and, thus, fishing is harder. The only documented examples of MPAs actually increasing the abundance of fish in an entire region, as opposed to just inside a closed area, are when overfishing was intense, and this is not a threat in Canada.

The major network of MPAs that was built following guidelines developed by MPA advocates is made up of over 100 MPAs implemented under the California Marine Life Protection Act. A 10-year review of these MPAs has been completed by the State of California, which concluded that there was no increase in biodiversity and no evidence that the MPAs provided climate resilience and that the abundance was higher inside some of the closed areas. A study by the University of California, Santa Barbara, concluded that there was no evidence that the overall abundance of fish increased. The reason for this lack of impact is simply that overfishing was not a problem in California.

Whether the threat is overfishing or bycatch, no-take areas are far less effective than good fisheries management. In a review paper on the epistemology of MPAs, a U.K. team wrote an article entitled, “MPA policy: What lies behind the science?” The paper ends:

The implication of these findings is that we should not accept at face value claims that MPAs are supported by science. The scientific evidence for MPAs is limited and patchy, and many normative assumptions lie below the surface in many of the so-called “scientific” arguments.

I conclude by reiterating that Canada should protect 100% of its marine ecosystems, not 30%, but that protection needs to be guided by an analysis of the threats and a careful evaluation of what the most effective actions are.

The effective way to balance biodiversity protection with the benefits to food security and employment from fishing is effective fisheries management. The resources that might be allocated to designing, implementing and enforcing no-take areas would be more effective if redirected to better fisheries management, which encompasses scientific surveys and monitoring, scientific evaluations like stock assessments, the setting of regulations based on best available science and properly enforcing those regulations.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Professor.

That concludes our opening remarks.

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

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all members for supporting my September 18 motion for this study.

We're beginning today examining the government's establishment of marine coastal protections since 2015, and with “particular focus on how these government initiatives” are affecting “Canadians”, “the government's methods [of] measuring whether conservation objectives and reasons...are achieved” and “whether the government's reasons and objectives for establishing marine and coastal protection are achieved”.

I believe all members support conservation of Canada's marine and fisheries resources, and I hope this study will help the government achieve effective, measurable and balanced conservation.

I'll start with a first question for Mr. Caveen and Mr. Hilborn.

In your opinions, how should governments measure the outcomes of conservation initiatives like marine protected areas?

Mr. Caveen.

[Dr. Alex Caveen]

The simple answer would be working more collaboratively with the fishing industry. Looking at the English process, essentially 10% of MPAs in the U.K. MPA network actually have monitoring in place, and even that's not comprehensive.

The fishing industry sits on a lot of data. From the outset, if you were to work more with the fishing industry, rather than chasing what can be quite arbitrary targets in my opinion, I think it's a sensible way forward. I'll leave it at that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Hilborn.

Can we keep the answers fairly concise? We have a lot to get through.

[Prof. Ray Hilborn]

I'd say the key is identifying what the problem is and how you measure whether it's being addressed. It's quite simple.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Do you think the government should assess the performance of its own initiatives or should that be a third party?

[Prof. Ray Hilborn]

A third party would be my preference.

[Dr. Alex Caveen]

Yes, I agree. There needs to be independence.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Can conservation occur without effective resource management and enforcement of laws and regulations?

[Prof. Ray Hilborn]

No.

[Dr. Alex Caveen]

The short answer is no.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

On November 25, 2025, DFO's director general of marine planning and conservation told the committee that “Fishing activities occur in all of our marine protected areas.”

Mr. Dovey, are there marine conservation areas established in or planned for B.C. waters where fishing is prohibited?

[Grant Dovey]

Yes, absolutely.

The recent zoning in Gwaii Haanas includes a number of zones that are completely closed to all fishing. The most recent marine refuges that have been implemented are Banks Island and the Hoeya Sill, and both of those are no-take.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

In the effort of saving time today, could you provide the committee with a list of those?

[Grant Dovey]

Yes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

I understand that DFO had some form of socio-economic impact analysis for the ongoing Northern Shelf bioregion MPA network development process.

Are you aware of that socio-economic analysis and how would you characterize it?