Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I agree that those levels of protections are in place and are of general application, as opposed to site-specific application, like individual protected and conserved areas.

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

Your report defines protected areas as including “clearly defined geographical spaces, recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve...long-term protection...established under legislation.”

All of Canada's marine waters are defined geographical spaces, recognized, dedicated and managed through legal or effective means for other objectives, including long-term protection of all this and it's based on federal statutes.

Would it be fair to say that 100% of Canada's marine waters are already protected areas?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The areas outside of the recognized, protected and conserved areas that are subject only to the laws of general application, like the Fisheries Act, for example, are not sufficiently protected to qualify for that definition under internationally recognized standards.

I see what you're getting at, though, in terms of the general language, which is that there is some degree of protection, but the level is not sufficient to qualify as a protected and conserved area, outside of the sites that we're talking about, which add up to the 15% right now.

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

The ever-increasing targets announced by the Liberal government are not establishing protection where there is no protection. The new targets are simply adding layers of prohibitions to meet international standards. Is that correct?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, a new protected area would add a higher level of protection within the boundaries of that protected area, as compared to the baseline level of general protection under the Fisheries Act, for example.

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

That level of protection is to meet international standards. Is that correct?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In the example that I just gave, it's to meet international standards as well as the definitions in the various enabling statutes for those protected areas domestically, whether that's the marine conservation act, the Oceans Act and so on.

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

Mr. DeMarco, the Liberal government has increased marine conservation targets from 10% to 15% to 20% to 30%. The increases have been delivered with the government stating that establishing more MPAs will aid Canada in fighting climate change, which is an objective I believe all members agree with as being worthwhile.

How do MPAs help Canada fight climate change?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Any efforts to protect marine biodiversity help in what's called nature-based solutions to climate. If you have a healthy stock of aquatic life, it's storing carbon, in terms of its biomass. That is one example.

For example, fish, plankton and all of those aquatic organisms in a healthy ecosystem will be storing within their body mass large portions of carbon. They'll also be assisting in various natural cycles, like the carbon cycle as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

Next, we're going to Mr. Connors for five minutes.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Ms. Graham, I'm going to give you an opportunity because you used the word “actors” in the statement. I just want to clarify that it was nothing derogatory against any fishermen in the Newfoundland, Labrador or anywhere.

[Kathy Graham]

I appreciate that opportunity.

I should have referred to the fishing industry as our primary stakeholders.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I'm going to stay with you for a second there now.

You mentioned in your opening remarks about 3,000 jobs and a number of new businesses. These are statistics that you have used or found from marine protected areas or conservation areas.

What is the feedback on, or have you done any research on, any economic loss from fishermen or fishers along those lines?

[Kathy Graham]

As part of the regulatory process in terms of establishing marine protected areas in Canada, there is a socio-economic analysis that's undertaken through the regulatory impact assessment statement, which is a publicly available document that is part of the regulatory packages that are published, both through Gazette I and also through Gazette II. And what we've learned is that in 10 of the 14 MPAs, we have found that there's little to no measurable economic impact on existing fisheries under the final boundaries once we have worked with stakeholders to establish them, following negotiations and many consultations with the industry.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Some of the feedback I get from Newfoundland fishers, especially around the marine conservation area proposed for the south coast of Newfoundland but even for any marine protected areas that are being considered, is around the consultation process.

This question will be for Ms. Graham and Mr. Miller.

In the consultation process, I get fishers who say that they weren't consulted. How can we ensure that they are consulted? I heard Parks Canada say that they have a comprehensive consultation process, but how can we ensure this when I'm hearing that people are saying they don't feel like they're consulted?

[Kathy Graham]

Once an area is identified, the regulatory process goes through five phases. We do the preplanning to understand, for that site-specific location, what human activities are occurring there; to identify the stakeholders who have a vested interest so that we have a better understanding of who they are; and learn about the potential economic impacts.

We then undertake a feasibility assessment to understand the likelihood of success, the conservation objectives that are being sought and what economic activities may pose a risk to those conservation objectives.

As part of that regulatory development process where we're really trying to be very surgical in our intervention and understand the exact activities that do pose a risk to those conservation objectives, at the point we undertake a very thorough socio-economic analysis and conduct consultation with all those who are interested and invested in that, with a goal of eventually understanding the management protocols we'll have in place and a long-term management and monitoring of the site in the future.

Throughout that entire process, stakeholders and partners are engaged. We seek feedback and comments on the regulatory proposals, also through the formal consultation process, through the regulatory process itself. And, as I noted, we have undertaken approximately 6,800 activities across the country with a goal of reaching and engaging with all the stakeholders who have a vested interest in that specific site.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Millar, do you have anything to add to that? You have about 20 to 30 seconds.

[David Millar]

I can just say briefly that to date we've had 14 different community meetings on the south coast. We've had 10 dedicated meetings with the fishing industry. We've invited the industry to set up a specific advisory committee with us. Having said that, it doesn't mean that every person knows about every meeting. We know we have to do more to get out there and make sure that everyone knows what's going on and that's certainly our intent, to make sure that everyone feels heard.

Like I said, we've encouraged the industry to work with us on setting up an advisory committee too and we'll certainly keep going out there and talking to people and using every communication method we have to make sure people know about the consultations and can get out and participate. We know people are busy too. They're working. They're out fishing. They can't always come to a meeting. We want to give people every opportunity they can to participate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Deschênes, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. DeMarco, I will give you the opportunity to answer my question about the lack of political will.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

You wanted to know if there were any consequences.

Neither the Oceans Act nor the Fisheries Act provide for consequences when the federal government fails to meet such a target in one of its policies. The consequences may be a rather negative audit report or a committee report whose conclusion I do not want to speculate on, but, from what I understand as a lawyer, there are no legal consequences for failing to meet the 2025 targets.

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

I am going to use my seconds to discuss with you another aspect that you raised, which is the concern about major nation-building projects.

When the government determines that a project is a nation-building one, it wants to move very quickly and disregard many laws. Just yesterday, we heard about an agreement with Alberta to build more pipelines. That will be confirmed on Thursday.

In the current context, and given the government's direction, what is your view on our ability to meet our marine protected area targets?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As I said briefly in my presentation, completing the map of protected marine and terrestrial areas will give decision-makers certainty. I think it is possible to do both things at the same time: approve new projects on the one hand, and create and establish new protected and conserved areas on the other.

Completing the map will provide a lot more certainty and perhaps cool down the debate on each project.

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

It is possible, but based on your understanding of Bill C‑5, isn't it possible that, if a project is considered a nation-building one, marine protected areas will be ignored because the government will decide that it is going to carry out the project anyway?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I am sorry, but I have to cut you off again. The time is up.

If the witness does not have time to answer in the next round, he may be able to answer you in writing.

Next we're going to go to Mr. Gunn for five minutes.