Fisheries Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[Mark Carr, Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this committee's study of marine and coastal protections, and more specifically the application of spatial management approaches to achieving those protections.

My background in the science and policy of marine protected areas is summarized in my nomination biography, so I won't spend time repeating that beyond emphasizing my experience in the planning process and subsequent monitoring and evaluation of California's state-wide MPA network and as a scientific adviser to the Great Bear Sea MPA Network design process and the ongoing development of the monitoring and evaluation program. I am less familiar with the processes elsewhere, such as in Canada.

For further context, I want to emphasize that I hope to help inform your study and not to advocate either for or against marine protected areas. In part, it would jeopardize my continued involvement in conducting the evaluation of California's network if I were to convey a perceived bias on this topic.

To that end, I have put together a document that summarizes responses to the three overarching questions I was asked to address. I don't know when you'll receive that, as I'm still finishing it, but it includes references and summaries of documents and publications relevant to each of those questions.

I will make one or two overarching comments for context to the responses in that document and today.

California has developed a very robust ecological monitoring and evaluation program to assess how well the conservation goals of the network are being achieved. However, as reflected in the state's decadal review of the network, that program has not given sufficient attention to socio-economic consequences, including for both fisheries and first nations, nor has the development of the monitoring program engaged those stakeholders. In contrast, my experience to date in the design of the Great Bear Sea MPA Network evaluation program indicates that that process intends to do a much more inclusive and better job of addressing how it will evaluate those socio-economic consequences. I understand that this is also the case in some provinces, but I'm not as familiar with them. However, because many of the MPAs and the existing monitoring programs in the Great Bear Sea are younger than the California network, there are simply fewer results to be able to point to.

I'm going to stop there so that we have time for your important questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Professor Carr.

If you could send that document to the committee, we'll make sure that it gets translated and circulated to all members.

With that, we're going to Mr. MacDonald for opening remarks of up to five minutes.

[Fraser MacDonald, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members of this committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to speak of my direct experience with the marine planning process on the Pacific coast and how the implementation and the uncertainty surrounding the many ongoing draft processes are affecting families, jobs, investment and community health in the Pacific region.

My name is Fraser MacDonald. I am from Vancouver. For the past 15 years, I have owned and operated a commercial fishing business with my wife. Over the last 20 years, I’ve participated in many of the fisheries on our Pacific coast and have learned a great deal during my time on the water.

I currently serve as the president of the Pacific Prawn Fishermen’s Association and, for the last three years, I've had the privilege of working with UBC's Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries as an adjunct professor.

My comments today, however, are my own, and are shaped by my experience in the industry and throughout the MPA planning process.

I spend about six months a year at sea, so I know first-hand why we need protections for ecosystems and biodiversity. The wildlife and natural beauty of our coast are incredible. Canada’s coasts are worth protecting and fishermen understand this better than most. Our livelihoods depend on doing our work sustainably over the long term.

Please hear my voice today not as an argument against marine protected areas, but as a call for a made-in-Canada implementation method—one that recognizes our international commitments, but doesn’t shackle us to a standardized international implementation plan that doesn’t reflect the reality on our coasts. We can protect what is currently unprotected without undermining a sustainable industry and the coastal economies that depend on it.

Last week, a witness in this committee mentioned that some fish stocks in Canada need rebuilding. What he didn’t mention were the many world-leading examples of co-management that currently exist in Canadian fisheries.

It's my opinion that rebuilding stocks or protecting biodiversity should not be approached in a Canadian context by drawing two-dimensional boundaries on a chart with static implementation. Canada's international commitments were based on global templates designed primarily for countries with little or no fisheries management or monitoring. That's not the Canadian reality.

For countries without management systems, static no-take-style MPAs may be a fast way to protect unprotected biodiversity, but Canada already has extensive fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement in place. Thirty per cent protection of a country's EEZs with weak oversight—even with half of it designated as no-take—would still be far less robust than what we currently have in the Pacific region.

Our coast already has approximately 35% protection through existing static MPAs and our wild fisheries are further protected through our IFMPs. Despite this, the previous federal government has been pursuing significant additional static protected zones throughout our coast, many with no-take provisions that would devastatingly reduce landings in some fisheries from 20% to 50%.

If we want to protect static benthic ecosystems, then static protection can be the right tool—targeted to specific sites addressing specific threats that are not already being managed—but fishing effort impacts should be managed through IFMPs, not blunt spatial closures.

Instead of celebrating collaborative success and fixing identifiable gaps, Canada is on course for a future where we have voluntarily legislated our wild capture fisheries out of business and have risked our coastal communities' survival by applying a standardized international solution to a uniquely Canadian coast.

In October, I attended a lunch with Minister Thompson where she expressed a concern at the lack of people under 35 years old in fisheries. In 2018, I had the privilege of addressing this committee and I spoke about the looming labour gap in B.C.'s fisheries. I can say now with confidence that we're living in the midst of that shortage.

The MPA process in B.C. is a main driver of an exodus from our industry. Three of my boats were purchased from multi-generational fishermen who retired and sold, not because their children lacked interest or skill, but because they chose other careers—tugboats, ferries or coastal pilots. They loved fishing, but why gamble on a future with such uncertainty of access?

The same is true for many of my young captains and crew. My fishing operation employs up to 25 people during our peak fishing season. They are talented and committed, and many could become boat owners one day, yet I fully expect that most will leave the industry. I don't blame them. Why would someone borrow over $1 million to buy a boat and licence that could be devalued to nearly nothing within 10 years? Why commit to a 15-year bank mortgage on an asset that may not exist before it's paid off?

If Canada is serious about building a blue economy and a strong economy that works for everyone, and strengthening domestic industries, I'll say the current policy is doing the opposite of it. It's impeding investment and forcing the next generation of fishermen out. We need certainty of access, plain and simple.

Fishing requires years of mentorship, skill building and local knowledge. We cannot fix this labour shortage overnight, but we can at least start now.

What I would like to see is a transparent, made-in-Canada approach to meeting our international obligations with meaningful industry collaboration. By that, I mean actually seeing industry advice incorporated into outcomes, not just being allowed to speak at consultation meetings. This would go a long way to restoring trust and, with it, investment.

Fishing is already a hard life—months at sea, months in shipyards, market volatility and global trade pressures. Fishermen face adversity with resilience because it's our job, but the added stress that's been imposed during the prolonged uncertainty of the MPA process in B.C. has exhausted an already stretched workforce. Fishers who engage with DFO in this process do so as volunteers, donating immense amounts of our time, energy and resources. I can tell you, our industry is exhausted from the last 10-plus years of this, with little to show for our effort.

I hope this committee will examine the path that Canada is on, advise the government to be brave internationally, change course, use the tools that we already have for fisheries and use MPAs where they truly will add protection to protect the unprotected.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacDonald.

We're going to conclude with opening remarks from Keith Sullivan, for five minutes.

[Keith Sullivan, Executive Director, Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association]

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity.

NAIA currently represents 130 members, comprising aquaculture farming companies and suppliers to the industry, with a vision to promote excellence in the aquaculture industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's proud of the work of its members and the 2,500 people who depend on aquaculture in the province. Our members produce salmon, trout, mussels, oysters and seaweeds, and 2024 was the highest value ever for aquaculture in the province's history.

This past year, I've had engagements with at least three different federal departments regarding development of MPAs. Much of my career, I've been engaged in the management of marine fisheries under a broad scope of conservation, protection and marine spatial planning processes.

NAIA members believe strongly in marine protections. They require a healthy marine environment and invest significantly in responsible environmental practices. Instituting a closed area is hailed as protecting the ocean. This is an oversimplified way to look at ocean protection. Many of the threats to marine environments don't come from any ocean activity. Our oceans are impacted by global warming, all sources of pollution or waste and runoff from land. I feel that Canada has simply taken a terrestrial model of protection and applied it to marine areas.

In Canada, there are significant environmental oversights for projects and very strict fishing standards. We must find balanced and advanced methods to conduct marine spatial planning in Canada where we already have robust marine protections. Canada has significant opportunities to responsibly grow marine sectors and protect marine life, but we must do better than racing to close large swaths of ocean to Canadians, especially those who work and live on our coasts. It can't be a race to hit an arbitrary number—“30 by 30”—which is a proxy for protection, and do irreparable harm to our coastal communities now and into the future.

The UN hopes to see a 35% growth in aquaculture by 2030. The World Bank, in “Harnessing the Waters”, finds that:

Aquaculture could generate as many as 22 million new jobs by 2050, if stakeholders capitalize on the $1.5 trillion investment opportunity in the sector

Canada's blue economy strategy states:

It was...recommended that we should support the economic development of new aquaculture species and promote the essential role of aquaculture in sustainable domestic and global food production—and the future economic prosperity of coastal communities.

We have the longest coastline in the world. Globally, including Canada, there are struggles with food security, especially high-quality healthy seafoods. Canada has been consistently falling behind in seafood production. We were once a top five producer of seafood globally, and now we are not in the top 20. Right now, Canada is ignoring the needs and opportunities, and the approach of simply closing marine areas will see our country fall further behind.

The growth in areas protected went from 0.9% to around 16% in a decade, a 1,600% increase. It is important to consider the pressure already placed upon coastal communities. Closing areas to industries and activities can impact us by losses of livelihoods, traditions and future opportunities. In many cases, it will concentrate activities in other areas, so fish harvesters will have to move to other areas, use more carbon, increase costs, diminish food security—often based on uncertain conservation goals.

Parks Canada has been involved in the process of pushing to implement a large NMCA on the south coast of Newfoundland. It was to be larger than P.E.I., and would have serious negative economic impacts for the region, ceasing investment activity and curtailing future opportunities. Parks Canada refused to engage in any socio-economic review of potential impacts. This was inadequate. The obvious failure to properly consult was felt by all sectors: fisheries, mining, energy, aquaculture and municipalities. The goals were not clear, and public trust has been lost because of the approach taken to MPA development.

The sweeping protection standards are rigid. Regardless of the specific reasons for developing an MPA, Parks Canada emphasized finfish aquaculture will not be allowed. Many activities have automatically been excluded from operating in MPAs, regardless of the circumstances or goals of the MPA. Such an unreasonable standard can only be detrimental to Canadians.

I have listed some recommendations.

Number one is that a thorough, independent socio-economic impact review must be completed in the first stage of considering an MPA.

Number two is to revamp the consultative process. More consultation must be done with provincial governments, municipal governments and communities, and especially with major industry stakeholders, whose livelihoods are going to be impacted.

Number three is to focus on a strategy that allows responsible marine farming within protected areas that does not impede specific conservation goals.

Finally, number four is to consider having one federal government department lead marine protections and modern marine spatial planning while focused on balanced Canadian values.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.

With that, we're going to go into the first round of questioning, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witnesses. I found each of your opening statements very interesting. Thank you very much.

I'm going to start out today with Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan, Mr. McIsaac mentioned earlier that MPAs are being created with a view of the past. I should say that in your experience as the former president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union in Newfoundland and Labrador, you're fairly familiar with the Hawke channel closed area and the Funk Island closed area.

[Keith Sullivan]

I am, relatively, yes.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

An argument that we get from people who are against the closing of marine space to economic activity is that outcomes can't be measured.

What was the reason that those two areas became closed?

[Keith Sullivan]

Going back to that, it preceded my time with the FFAW to a certain degree, but in most of the consideration for the closures of those areas, particularly in the Hawke area off Labrador, fish harvesters wanted to protect their very valuable crab resource. Closing the area to bottom-impacting gear, like bottom trawling and even gillnets, would obviously have an impact on crab there, so that's what harvesters certainly believed was the goal of the Hawke closure in particular.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

What has been the trajectory of the snow crab resource biomass in the Hawke channel since that area was closed to bottom trawling?

[Keith Sullivan]

I don't have the latest science, but generally the trajectory has been that over that 2G region in general, there's been a significant decrease in crab. It's been a tough time for people fishing and depending on the area there. I'm not aware of any significant differences inside and outside the closed area.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Would you agree that this is a measured outcome?

[Keith Sullivan]

I suppose it could be a measurable outcome.

As I said, I don't have the fully comparable stats, but absolutely, one way to measure it is if there is no obvious difference in what the main issue was there.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Recently you've been involved in the push-back on the south coast fjords national marine conservation area, NMCA.

To your knowledge, were any foreign forces at play, either financially or otherwise, in the influencing of public opinion about that conservation area?

[Keith Sullivan]

I'd just say very generally, on the higher level, that the NMCAs were run through Parks Canada. Most of my experience in the past had been with DFO through marine protected areas. The consultation here from Parks Canada left a lot to be desired, and we can look at opportunities to deal with that.

There definitely seems to be a strong input from the ENGO community. We know that their parent organizations and a lot of their funding and money come from international sources, particularly the United States, absolutely.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Your industry is blamed for the demise of wild salmon stocks on the south coast. To my knowledge, there's a wild fishery that's not that regulated in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Could they be taking some of the wild fish that your industry was blamed for?

I understand that some of the great supporters of that marine conservation area were supporting it because they wanted to shut down net-pen salmon farming to save wild fish, while a foreign country, France, sitting 20 or 30 miles offshore, has a wild salmon fishery.

What do you think of that, Mr. Sullivan?

[Keith Sullivan]

Again, I would say, first of all, to your point about salmon, I grew up commercial fishing in a home that depended on wild salmon harvest to put the bread on the table and keep the lights on. We all know that before 1990, the trajectory of salmon for a century had been declining. We had big declines in the eighties and nineties before there was any salmon farming in the area. We've seen similar trajectories in areas where there is no aquaculture. I think it's clear that there are much bigger issues involved in dealing with wild salmon stocks, so we're legitimately concerned with it. The other sources of impacts have not got the same attention, whether it's predation or impacts from other fisheries, like the extent of the fishery in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon or other places.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you.

I've got a couple of more seconds and a really important question, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Carr, we've had ENGOs come to this committee and say that the harvesting of seals would have no impact on biodiversity and that the outcomes of culls are never measured, or oftentimes not. If they do arrive at some kind of a discovered outcome, it's not what was desired in the first place. Have you have you heard groups say that culling of species doesn't really protect other species?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry, Mr. Carr, but I'm going to have to jump in here as we're well over the time. It is a very important question. If you'd like to submit an answer in writing, it would be much appreciated by the committee.

With that we're going to move to Mr. Connors for six minutes, please.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming out.

I just want to point out that I'm not here to blame anybody. I'm here to find and study what can be done to make sure we have a sustainable fishery and conservation with it as well.

I want to start with Mr. Sullivan. Over the past years—I guess since the cod moratorium—fish management and how we manage our fish stocks has become very important. It was probably in the industry prior to that, but that's when the main focus on it came. I know the industry is concerned with the conservation and the sustainability of the species. If we don't protect our food source, or the food source for our food source, what will happen to the healthy ocean or ocean habitat?

[Keith Sullivan]

First of all, I think we'd all agree that conservation is paramount and very important. Some of the other witnesses put it very eloquently that we have very robust and detailed fisheries management plans to manage those fisheries generally. When you're talking about protecting those species, that's the primary way to do it. I think protecting, as you say, the food source of our food sources is really important.

I'm not sure if I'm fully answering your question, but I definitely agree that it's paramount.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

What I'm getting at is this. Do you think that we can have marine protected areas or conservation areas and a sustainable fishery at the same time?

[Keith Sullivan]

Yes, I think we can do it. Right now, like I said, there has been 1,600% growth in these boxes that we're putting. Is that the best way to protect our marine environment? There are definitely other ways to do it, and you've got to consult with those who are using the ocean. I think that's been the problem so far. As we have seen, it's gone so quickly to conservation and putting those lines on the map, as others have said, without really giving full consideration to those who are fishing or doing other activities, whether it's mining or aquaculture. We've got to do a better job of dealing with the people who have the most to lose.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Going back to your former position as well as with your current position now with the aquaculture industry, I note there's been confusion about take and no-take zones within the different areas, the MPAs or NMCAs. From your experience, have you seen areas where there's no take?