Fisheries Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[Keith Sullivan]

Yes, in all the others, there's absolutely no take. There are different degrees of not being able to take any fish, but even in the most recent one that's been in the news the last couple of days, proposed through Parks Canada, they absolutely have to have no-take zones. That's within the protection standards.

What was really troubling to most people involved was that Parks Canada was explaining to people, “Oh, we only want 5% that you're not going to be able to take.” Then, when you went into their document, which was the policy on the management of NMCAs, they said the goal of this was to place the majority of the area in fully protected areas. Their guiding management document was saying we have to have over 50% at least. The majority is over 50%, but they're saying, “No, don't worry about it; it's only going to be 5%.”

It was very hard for people whose livelihoods depended on that to trust their word when their guiding documents told us differently. That was only one of the many problems with the consultation on that NMCA.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

For the consultation or for how MPAs are developed, what would be your recommendation? You spoke about this, I think, in your opening statement, but in particular how should the industry—the fishers—be involved in the process?

[Keith Sullivan]

Again, very quickly for people who wouldn't be aware, I was a harvester growing up and spent about 20 years with the Fish, Food and Allied Workers doing a lot of fisheries management, stock assessments and things like that.

The involvement is key from the start. I was also involved with the Eastport MPA—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

You have 30 seconds.

[Keith Sullivan]

In 30 seconds, the thing is that was a grassroots movement. Harvesters in the area supported it. That's the opposite of what we're seeing with most of the MPAs now. Again, they just don't have the involvement from the local people, either harvesters or people from other industries, and the biggest problem is not getting that buy-in early.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Connors.

Go ahead, Mr. Deschênes. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us and answering our questions.

Mr. Sullivan, I saw what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador this week. The province pulled out of a memorandum of understanding for a proposed marine protected area.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that development.

[Keith Sullivan]

The decision by the provincial government and Premier Wakeham to withdraw from this MOU was widely supported in Newfoundland and Labrador. Quite frankly, the consultation was terrible from the start and, as I alluded to, there was no trust in what the final product would be.

As one very direct example, if you're going to do something like this, you have to do a socio-economic review. That's one of my recommendations. They didn't even consider doing a socio-economic review and they ignored people's concerns right from the very start. There was no trust in the process, and I believe it was going to be very problematic for many people who depend on that area, so people are pleased with the decision, generally speaking.

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

I took note of your suggestion that socio-economic reviews be conducted. Nevertheless, any effort to protect an area will have socio-economic repercussions. By definition, certain activities will be prohibited.

I'm trying to figure out the right way to proceed.

Are you proposing that the idea be scrapped altogether, or do you think progress can be achieved if a consultation process is put in place and the socio-economic consequences are taken into account?

If the decision is to go ahead, how do we move forward while keeping people onside?

[Keith Sullivan]

Part of the problem is not having clearer conservation goals. This area was nearly 7,000 square kilometres, which is, again, larger than P.E.I.

If there are benthic habitats or sensitive areas that we want to protect, let's do that and let's have a conversation about that. Let's talk about how we can achieve the goals besides simply trying to get to the target of the 30 by 30.

That's the thing that's clouding the conservation goals overall. It's an artificial rush to get to this without necessarily considering whether we are doing a good job here. I think people would be open to real conservation as opposed to just a massive marine park.

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

A more measured approach is needed, then.

The government has allowed oil drilling off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you think that could also undermine social licence?

The government says it is protecting certain areas, while allowing oil and gas exploration to go on not that far away.

[Keith Sullivan]

In that particular area around that NMCA, I don't believe there are any oil permits. There are people on all sides, but I generally believe there are people who are supportive of a responsible oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a very important part of our economy.

At the same time, many people depend on the ocean. If there are areas with sensitive issues or species that we need to protect, let's look at ways of doing that. I think generally that's where people are at—a more sensible, reasonable, measured and balanced approach to marine conservation.

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

Mr. Carr, where do you stand on that?

[Mark Carr]

I don't know how I understood what you said, but I did.

I think there are two elements to this. One, as you've heard from many people and many of the previous speakers, is this fundamental importance of co-management, the management that engages the industry. I think that speaks not just to fisheries management and conservation efforts, but even down to the details of these socio-economic evaluations.

These are model predictions with all sorts of assumptions of what those protected areas are going to regulate. I think that engaging the various stakeholders, not necessarily to do the modelling but to have input on how those models are constructed and what they consider, would make those models and predictions both more accurate and more acceptable.

I don't want ENGOs doing all the socio-economic modelling. I wouldn't want the fisheries industry doing all the socio-economic modelling. There are questions of the government doing it, as well.

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

There will be a socio-economic impact. Adjustments can be made, but there will still be consequences.

How was that issue addressed in California?

Were fishers compensated for the loss in revenue?

[Mark Carr]

There are two aspects to that. One aspect is the socio-economic predictions, as we said, that emerge from the planning process. There were groups of scientists in that planning process who were doing these evaluations of the trade-off between the conservation value versus the socio-economic impact—explicitly, though, to fisheries, with the metric of yield being balanced with conservation. That helped set up the evaluation of different design possibilities with respect to the trade-offs that emerge from that.

More importantly, too, is what you're getting at, which is the actual evaluation, the collection of socio-economic data that then is used to truly identify what those consequences are. California, as I said, did not do a good job of that. Therefore, the hope is that the Canadian effort will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

Next, we're going to start the second round of questioning with Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses again for your testimony.

Mr. Carr, what needs to be in place to measure the results of marine and coastal protection plans?

[Mark Carr]

More than anything, a monitoring program is needed, one that's designed to evaluate the consequences of the creation of that protected area or the network of the protected area, but done in a way where you can clearly attribute the effects you see to the protected area. That's the difficult part.

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

Would that also include having baselines to know what was there initially?

[Mark Carr]

In part when possible, yes, it would. Sometimes, because you don't know where those protected areas are going to happen, you don't have previous monitoring data to develop that baseline. For that reason, we have developed analytical approaches that only look at responses subsequent to implementation and are rigorous enough to attribute the effects we see to the establishment of the MPA.

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

Could integrated fisheries management plans be as effective in limiting the impact on species and biodiversity?

[Mark Carr]

Those are very different.

The question is whether fisheries management can do a sufficient job of protecting the species that are harvested by those fisheries, and I think the answer is yes. We see sustainable fisheries along most of the west coast of North America, right?

They're doing a sufficient job protecting those species for that purpose, for the fishery. That's very different from asking whether they're protecting ecosystems.

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

There are overlapping IFMPs for the same area to manage all impacted species. Would that be as effective for managing biodiversity? If you had fisheries management plans for all species that were being harvested or were affected, would—

[Mark Carr]

That involved monitoring and evaluation on biodiversity effects as well? I think that's what you're asking?