Fisheries Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I have about 30 seconds, Mr. Dovey. Do you want to add anything to that?

[Grant Dovey]

Absolutely.

We started down the path of co-management on the west coast in about the mid-1990s. We've become leaders in industry co-management and reinvesting in science and co-management in monitoring, biotoxin testing and so on. All the fishing associations I work for are in it for the long haul. They want this to be sustainable for generations to come.

That's what a healthy ocean looks like to us. With these current world-class sustainable fisheries, right from groundfish trawl to dive fisheries like geoduck or sea cucumber, that's the path we're on. We can remain successful if we have the access. Without the access, it can't be successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Connors.

That concludes our first panel.

To all our witnesses, thank you for spending your time with us today, in person and by video conference. Your testimonies will be very important as we work on the report and the recommendations coming from that.

With that, I will briefly suspend as we welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Colleagues, I'm calling this meeting back to order.

As we get ready for our second panel, I want to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses. 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're not speaking.

For interpretation, those on Zoom can choose floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

With that, I would like to welcome our new witnesses.

Appearing in person, we have Professor Evan Edinger from Memorial University of Newfoundland. We also have Stephen Woodley from the World Commission on Protected Areas.

Joining us by video conference, from the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association, we have Ian MacPherson, executive director; and Melanie Giffin, marine biologist.

We will start with the witnesses' opening statements for five minutes or less, starting with Professor Edinger.

[Dr. Evan Edinger, Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, As an Individual]

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to Ottawa to testify and for the opportunity to address this important topic, and for continuing to look at this issue, when there are so many other urgent issues, especially on the international stage. The long-term, important things must not be ignored.

I'm a professor of geography, biology and earth sciences at Memorial University, where I've taught since 2001. I was a co-founder of two relevant research groups at MUN: our deep-sea corals research group and our marine habitat mapping research group.

I've had the privilege of working in all three of Canada's oceans, focusing on deep-sea corals and marine habitat mapping. I've had the privilege to work in, and with, coastal communities in the Arctic and in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I've also taught conservation biology and geography since 2002, so I feel comfortable with that discipline and how it applies to marine and coastal systems and to some of the marine conservation science and policy issues in Canada.

As a way to get into the specific questions that you might ask, I want to show you some of the animals that Canadian marine protected areas and conserved areas protect and conserve.

The skeletons you're holding are from animals, three different species of deep-sea corals that occur in Newfoundland and Labrador waters, and similar species occur in all three of Canada's oceans.

Each of the samples you are holding is from an animal that lived for longer than any of us in this room. We know how long they can live. The popcorn coral has concentric rings that look like tree rings, and they're growth rings. That species can live up to 600 years, but most of the samples we get from bycatch or research collections are about 70 to 100 years old. In B.C. waters, this coral is known as the red tree coral, and that's one of the species that Mr. Dovey referred to in the previous session.

In addition to knowing how long the individual animals can live, we know that some of these species build habitats in Canadian waters that have been continuously occupied by corals for more than 2,000 years. For example, the bamboo coral is growing in the Disko Fan marine refuge in Baffin Bay. The third one is the bubblegum coral. It reaches heights of two to three metres. It can live, again, for up to 100 years. The oldest sample that we aged in particular, a medium-sized one, was 70 years old.

These coral species live a long time and they grow very slowly, and they build habitats that other animals rely upon. They're highly sensitive to fishing impacts. We know that the first pass of a trawl does the most damage to these highly sensitive habitats but, also, we often don't know where they occur until we encounter them with fishing gear. I'll send a PDF copy of this report we published a number of years ago about mapping the distribution of deep-sea corals in Newfoundland and Labrador's waters based upon fisheries bycatch from the fisheries observer program and the DFO research trawls.

We also know that all kinds of bottom-contact fishing gear, when deployed in coral habitats, will damage the corals. Obviously, bottom trawls, because they cover the most area, cause the most damage, but gillnets, bottom longlines and even crab pots cause coral bycatch, especially when they are dragged across the bottom during haulback.

Deep-sea corals are one of the vulnerable marine ecosystem indicator species recognized by the UN FAO and by UN General Assembly resolution 61/105, which required Canada and other coastal states to identify and protect VME species and habitats.

I want to use my experience with corals to address the questions you've asked.

With regards to impacts on coastal communities, I'm not a social scientist, so I don't work on the economic impacts of marine and conserved areas. What I will do is relate some of my experiences with seeing how reserve design has taken into account those impacts, sometimes to the detriment of the effectiveness of the research.

We need to protect marine biodiversity, but not just for the fish. We want and need to protect healthy oceans, as our BC Seafood Alliance people said, so we can have marine biodiversity and marine fish in the future, and I think everyone agrees upon that. In the oceans, just as on land, it's important to remember that protected areas are not one-size-fits-all. Stephen Woodley here is going to describe the IUCN. There are many different categories of protected areas ranging from strict closures to ones that are actually managed for resource exploitation with biodiversity as a secondary concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Professor, I'm going to interject. We're out of time here. If you could wrap up, there'll be more time to delve into things in questions.

[Dr. Evan Edinger]

Okay.

I'm going to point to two examples of cases where we needed to pay more attention to the science.

Gilbert Bay MPA is a southern Labrador MPA established for the golden cod. When it was established, we did the marine habitat mapping for that area. Our friends who did fish tracking ultimately discovered that the area was too small and it needed to be expanded in order to effectively protect that subpopulation of cod. Unfortunately, that scientific recommendation was not implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Professor, I'm afraid we're well over time here, so I'm going to have to cut you off there. You can always submit more in writing and there'll be an opportunity in questions to get to that as well.

My apologies for that, but we need to move on to Mr. Woodley.

You have the floor for five minutes or less for your opening remarks.

[Stephen Woodley, Vice-Chair for Science, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Commission on Protected Areas, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm an ecologist who has worked for 40 years on protected areas, both in land and sea. I was formerly chief scientist at Parks Canada and now I work with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.

I've led studies on the effectiveness of protected areas. For my sins, I've been deeply involved in the Convention on Biological Diversity's process, which led to the targets that we're talking about today. That CBD process, which was agreed to in Montreal in December 2022, has four goals and 23 targets. Its purpose is to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and equitably share the benefits of biodiversity.

I wish we could all say that we're in great shape here in Canada or in the world with the state of our oceans, but nothing is further from the truth. The oceans are in trouble. Fish stocks are mismanaged. Part of the reason that we came up with these targets collectively was to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. That's a really important process.

The second point I want to make is this was a science-based process. The Conference of the Parties, COP, is highly political, but the work that goes on behind that is very science-based. I'll discuss the science basis of 30 by 30 in just a couple of minutes.

Another target we should be talking about in addition to target three—which is nicknamed “the 30 by 30 target”, unfortunately—is target 10, which says we're supposed to sustainably manage all of our fisheries as a country. These targets have to work collectively together if we're going to make progress. We're not going to make progress just by implementing one target of this very complex global biodiversity framework.

We know for sure that protected areas work when they're set up to work. I've led research on this. I've published it in Science and in Nature. Protected areas work when they're well designed, when they're effectively managed and when they're equitably governed. These three things work together for conservation outcomes.

What's the basis of the 30% figure? Unfortunately, that's the headline part of target three. It's a bit unfortunate that it is because the qualitative parts are far more important. It's where they're located and how they're managed, rather than hitting that magical number. It's a bit of a problem.

I looked at and published a paper on what the best overall number is. Like Dr. Hilborn said, it comes from your objectives. I looked at 70 studies from around the world and from different ecosystems that met my review criteria. If you're worried about protecting representative ecosystems, rare ecosystems or species at risk, then there are no studies that come up with less than 30%. If you add all these things together, many of them come up to a far higher number than that. The 30% is the bottom line and that figure was pushed by IUCN based on the paper I wrote. There are 100 papers written that justify that number. It is not a political number; it's a science-based number. That's important.

What if we protected 30% of the oceans effectively? What would be the impact on fishers? That's obviously a key concern of this committee and a completely valid one. The question of spillover is an important thing to consider. When you protect areas and make them no-take areas—and we know no-take areas are more effective than other kinds of protected areas—you have spillover. Fish get older and produce far more offspring, invertebrates produce far more offspring and it spills over to other areas. There may be some scientific debate on the intensity and effect of spillover. Nobody disagrees that it happens. I will give to the clerk a literature review I prepared on spillover, so you can have that as a background because I don't have time to talk about it in detail.

I think I'll stop there. That's probably enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Woodley. You're right on time.

With that, we are going to move to opening remarks from P.E.I. Fishermen's Association, for five minutes or less.

[Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association represents over 1,260 independent owner-operators. Our captains are major seasonal employers on the island, and our fishery is one of the three primary sectors that drive the Prince Edward Island economy.

We would like to thank the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to comment on marine protected areas and marine refuge areas, as these areas can potentially impact the livelihoods of our members. In our opening remarks, we will offer the Prince Edward Island perspective, in addition to comments on how areas should be managed and assessed. We are using the committee invitation as a template for our comments.

Point A is on how these government initiatives have affected Canadians and coastal communities that depend on fisheries and marine resources. Speaking from a gulf perspective, the marine refuges were a gentleman's agreement with island harvesters for many years, and it was made official in 2017. As a result, there was very little criticism because harvesters chose the areas, species to protect and method of protection. This highlights a key step in developing MPAs and a marine refuge.

Point B is on the government's methods for measuring whether conservation objectives and reasons for establishing protected areas are achieved. Marine refuges around P.E.I. do not have a management and conservation plan. The PEIFA works with DFO to monitor areas inside the marine refuge.

The challenge with these marine refuges not having conservation and management plans is that, although fishers cannot use destructive bottom-trawling gear, other proponents appear to easily obtain permits, from fish and fish habitat protection, to carry out destructive activities, like dredging. This is not a recommendation that a marine refuge needs a management conservation plan but, at the very least, the same rules should be applied to all using the space.

In the case of marine protected areas resulting in no-take zones, there is a need to develop a precautionary approach with stakeholders. An overall objective for the implementation needs to be clear, with targets and plans laid out on how to confirm the targets are being met. Lacking targets in a monitoring plan begs the question of whether a conservation target is being met or not. Currently, the majority of DFO MPA objectives are monitoring, with no targets. If monitoring shows that populations decline, will the MPA be removed, since it appears it is having no effect on the ecosystem?

Point C is on whether the government's reasons and objectives for establishing marine and coastal protection are achieved. The reason and objective for establishing marine and coastal protection needs to be determined in collaboration with those who make their living on the ocean. They are citizen scientists who know the waters better than anyone else. In general, the majority of MPAs in our region were put in place to protect soft corals, which is more easily measured, as they are sedentary. Confirmation that other species are benefiting as a by-product of the coral protection is limited.

In summary, the success of any designated area can be achieved only if there is an effective and meaningful communication with those who make their living on the water. As noted in our opening example, there can be agreement on designated areas when key stakeholders have input that is respected and acknowledged by the decision-makers. We need to build flexibility into the assessment process, which will allow for designated areas to be moved or reopened if climactic conditions dictate.

We would be glad to elaborate for the committee on any of these points and take questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacPherson.

That concludes our opening remarks.

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

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

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll start with Dr. Woodley. Dr. Woodley, the IUCN's home page states that it is “the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it”. Would you agree that governments elected by the citizens should be the authority determining conservation measures of that nation?

[Stephen Woodley]

I'm sorry, I didn't really follow that. Can you repeat it?

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

Would you agree that governments elected by the citizens should be the authority determining the conservation measures of that nation?

[Stephen Woodley]

There's absolutely no question that under the CBD it's up to the governments voted by their citizens to implement the CBD.

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

Part of the reason this study is happening is that the Government of Canada, in concert with international organizations like the IUCN, has made sweeping changes that citizens object to. This is why MPs who are elected by citizens are questioning the policies of the government and the IUCN.

Dr. Woodley, have you seen citizen opposition to conservation measures driven by governments on the advice of IUCN in other countries?

[Stephen Woodley]

Yes, I have, but I want to, for the record, state that IUCN did not create the 23 targets and four goals of the CBD. That was done by an international process under the UN. Canada and Quebec were both present in the process—

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

It was an international organization.

[Stephen Woodley]

The IUCN is only an observer to that process.

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

I think it's a very important for citizens and elected representatives to question the policies, beliefs and practices, even when there are supportive political leaders or scientists.

For instance, take eugenics. The IUCN was founded by Julian Huxley, who was also president of the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. There was a time when many, like the IUCN founder, believed that eugenics was right, that it was validated by science and that it was a path to a better future. However, they failed to account for the terrible costs that regular people would bear because of their belief in eugenics.

When it comes to conservation of marine coastal areas, the IUCN has all sorts of definitions and standards being deployed in Canada. What safeguards does IUCN provide for Canadian citizens to ensure the rights and dignity of individuals are not crushed by the IUCN, which is headquartered in Switzerland?

[Stephen Woodley]

First of all, I would completely agree with you that science is an evolving field. It's one that is meant to be evolving by design in that we try to bring the best available science to the table. Where new science exists, we should bring it to the table.

If you want to talk about the IUCN, its motto is a just world that conserves nature. It's very concerned with the rights of individuals and certainly the rights of marginalized people and indigenous and local communities.

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

I'll switch to a question for Mr. MacPherson now.

In your opening, you stated that P.E.I. harvesters actually chose the refuges that would be recognized around P.E.I. because they believed in the effectiveness of them, but I believe you also went on to say something about the enforcement or the standards that were set.

Would you like to expand on that, please?

[Ian MacPherson]

I'm going to defer to my colleague, Melanie, who would be a little more familiar with that process.

[Melanie Giffin, Marine Biologist, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Yes, it was a gentleman's agreement that was actually in place by harvesters long before it was ever made a formal marine refuge around Prince Edward Island, in an effort to protect juvenile lobster habitat.

The comment about the conservation and management of it is that, in most cases, when you see a marine protected area like a no-take zone—for example St. Anns Bank and so on—there's a conservation plan that comes with it for targets. The marine refuges are not as strict because a different tool is used to implement them. In this case, we don't have the same kind of conservation targets laid out as something like a marine protected area like St. Anns Bank would have.