Fisheries Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

[Katelyn Lindsay]

That's been the goal this whole time. We want something that shows we will still have access to sustainable fishing in these MPAs.

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

What answers did you get?

[Grant Dovey]

The NSB's current draft includes 350-plus zones. About 25% of those would be completely no-take and the rest would have various levels of activities that would be allowed. Some fisheries would be permitted in, say, the example that Dr. Hilborn mentioned with protecting deepwater coral, so there wouldn't be trawl or bottom-contact fisheries for trap or longline. Other fisheries would be permitted.

There is mixed use, but there are a number of no-take areas on the deck, and it comes down to cutting off significant access that will be devastating to the industry upwards of 20% to 50%, like I mentioned, for key fisheries in the NSB.

The problem is more the draft zoning that includes some no-take and some partial in the open areas.

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

Okay.

What will remain permitted?

[Grant Dovey]

It depends on the zone and the implementation tool. In the recent examples, marine refuges have been all no-take. It just depends on the zoning. Like I said, it could be right from no-take to partial use.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Deschênes.

That completes our first round of questioning, so we're going into the second round.

I'll hand it over to Mr. Gunn for five minutes, please.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dovey, DFO officials and the minister herself have told this committee that the idea that the planned MPA network, these marine parks, would be no-take zones or where many fisheries would be affected and prohibited outright was “misinformation”. Is it misinformation, or has DFO explicitly proposed through draft scenarios and plans, contrary to their testimony to this committee, that is exactly what they are planning to do?

[Grant Dovey]

I've been intensively involved in marine planning on the west coast since 2018. There are significant areas that will be closed to a large number of fisheries on the west coast right from, as I mentioned earlier, a number of areas that are completely no-take and a number of areas that are closed to specific fisheries.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

To clarify, if these draft proposals from DFO that you have seen become a reality, how much of your fishing grounds are they threatening to rip away from Canadians and fishermen like yourselves?

[Grant Dovey]

We've seen reductions in quota from a number of areas as they've been implemented over the last 10 to 15 years that have gotten B.C. to that 35% of marine areas conserved. We can live with that, but what's on deck with the Northern Shelf bioregion and the draft closures there will impact 20% to 50% of key access for key fisheries on the coast, and it will push fisheries over the edge.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

It will impact 20% to 50%, potentially, of the access to your fisheries.

Presumably, as the government prepares to introduce these new restrictions, they've done some sort of study or analysis on the socio-economic impact as it relates to jobs and economic activity.

[Grant Dovey]

We've been calling for that for a number of years now. We last called for it at the end of last fiscal year. A year ago now we were told to wait until the fishery profile and landings information was updated. We still haven't seen that. Planners are on the verge of making decisions on the NSB without a proper socio-economic impact analysis.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

What you're telling me is they are pushing forward with this ideological 30 by 30 plan without actually conducting analysis on how many jobs this will cost the industry and what the impact will be on coastal communities and fishermen and their families. Is that correct?

[Grant Dovey]

We've been asking that for a couple of years. We haven't seen it.

As it is now, what we need is an iterative socio-economic impact analysis, something that will turn the key on the impact on landings and jobs in one particular area, say the central coast national marine conservation area zone. A year later, if they're approaching zoning for offshore Haida Gwaii, they should rerun that economic analysis. The fact is we haven't seen an economic analysis since 2020.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I was chatting here at this committee with Kathy Graham, the director general of marine planning and conservation. I will read into the record what she told me, which is, “We work with the fishing industry. We really do strive to ensure that the impacts are as minimal as possible. We have, as a result, adjusted boundaries in a manner to actually minimize those socio-economic impacts.”

Have you seen any evidence of this? Has this been your experience, as someone working in the industry, that DFO has changed and adjusted their MPA boundaries significantly to minimize impact on your industry and job losses for Canadians?

[Grant Dovey]

Not in the NSB, no, and it's frustrating because we rolled up our sleeves and went to work back in 2019. We met or exceeded all of the ecological conservation priorities—130-plus of them, which were things like eelgrass, deepwater corals and specific types of habitat—just as well as, if not better than, the partners, yet reduced the impacts on the commercial fishing sector by 75%. We haven't seen any of that advice incorporated into the current draft of the NSB.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Hilborn, do you believe it is fundamentally science or ideology that is guiding the creation of these underwater parks or MPAs?

[Prof. Ray Hilborn]

I think most of the 30 by 30 movement is ideologically driven. Very little of it is science-based in terms of what your objective is and whether closing these areas is going to be effective.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Do you believe that the specific target of protecting 30% of Canada's waters is rooted in science, or is it an arbitrary number that is rooted in politics?

[Prof. Ray Hilborn]

The 30% number is certainly rooted in politics. The idea that we should protect the oceans I totally agree with, but closing areas is rarely the most effective way to protect marine biodiversity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions will be to Mr. Dovey and Ms. Lindsay.

It's important for the committee to establish that it's a draft plan at the moment that's been presented. There's a significant difference between the draft and what the final product will eventually look like. There seems to be a general consensus that protecting the environment in areas is beneficial for fisheries, but you have to do it in consultation with the people who would be affected.

Do you have recommendations for this committee to support the establishment of protections while having minimal impact on the long-term sustainable livelihood of fishers?

[Grant Dovey]

We presented that advice in 2020. We realize it is a draft, but despite our best efforts, we're repeatedly told, “Don't worry. Your advice will be incorporated.”

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Can you say that again?

[Grant Dovey]

Despite our best efforts, we're repeatedly told, “Don't worry. Your advice from 2020 will be incorporated into the final product.”