Fisheries Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Dwan Street]

We don't feel that there is a role for ENGOs when it comes to the management of fisheries.

We've sat at the table, and their messaging is always to close it down, to stop fishing, to limit fishing. There doesn't seem to be a willingness to work together. When that messaging is always negative and is trying to put our members out of a livelihood, we don't feel that anything they're bringing to the table is reliable. We don't trust their motives.

Our interest is always in maintaining the health of the resource so that it's going to sustain our communities for a long, long time, because in Newfoundland and Labrador, without the fisheries, our communities are just going to die.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

Professor Metaxas—I hope I said that right—196 countries around the world have signed on to 30 by 30. Could you tell us a bit about where Canada stands in relation to some of the other countries, or where the majority of the other countries are, in enforcing or achieving 30 by 30? Also, is Canada following the 30 by 30 process, or are we doing a Canadian version of 30 by 30?

[Anna Metaxas]

Thank you very much, and you almost pronounced my name correctly.

First of all, the 196 nations have not just signed on to 30 by 30. That's a very narrow view. What all those nations have signed on to, as we heard earlier in the week, is a global biodiversity framework.

The purpose of this is to prevent biodiversity loss. It has four goals and 23 targets, one of which is 30 by 30. Another target is sustainable fisheries. Another target is doing something about climate change and minimizing the impacts of climate change. Another target is spatial planning. That is what Canada has signed on to, and 30 by 30 is just one part.

In terms of how Canada is doing, I would say Canada, as you can expect, is doing better than some and worse than others. There are small island states—for example, Palau—that rely completely on their oceans, because that's what they're surrounded by. They have very high protection levels and they have far exceeded the 30% already. There are other countries that are doing much less. I would say that we're in the middle of the road, as Canada usually is.

In terms of whether we're approaching this with a Canadian reality, I think every country has to do that, including Canada. There is no recipe. Everybody is trying to adjust to their realities.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

You also mentioned consultation. We often hear that the industry doesn't feel it's being consulted adequately.

I'm wondering if you could talk about other organizations, as well as fishers and harvesters, and where we could improve consultation, from your perspective.

[Anna Metaxas]

My experience is from the Maritimes. I have sat in a lot of rooms in a lot of those consultations with a lot of different groups in the room—different fishing industries, ENGOs, academics who provide the science and all sorts of governments—and I would say those were heated debates. They always are.

We can always do better, and I think where we can do better is in spending time ahead of the process, with everybody informing each other and providing evidence to every other actor in the room about what things would mean. The scientists could say, “This is why you need 30 by 30.” The fishery industry could say, “Okay, but if you put it there, this is what it will mean to the industry.”

Consultations are critical. We need to have as many stakeholders and indigenous people in the room as we can, and I think we should educate one another as much as possible.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Information is always power, so educating people is probably one of the best strategies we can use.

Ms. MacDonald, I think you talked about an insufficient strategy and about organizations and departments working in silos. We saw a bit of that when the provincial government in Newfoundland reversed its decision on at least one of the MPAs.

I'm curious to know if you can talk about some of the other provinces across the country. How are they engaging, and are they buying in? How can we get more buy-in from the provincial governments as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm afraid I have to jump in here, because we are over time.

I think it's an important question. Ms. MacDonald, if you'd like to respond in writing, it would be much appreciated by the committee.

We will now continue with you, Mr. Deschênes. You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Dwan Street, you talked about a double standard in terms of the bans that result from the establishment of marine protected areas. You say there are different standards for the fishing industry and the oil and gas industry.

Would you like to explain that to us?

[Dwan Street]

Sure. I'll use the example of the development of the northeast marine slope.

We were consulted fairly heavily and told there would be no fishing activity in that area. On the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a fair amount of oil and gas activity, and our members were willing to make some sacrifices and compromises there with that area, because they recognized what a rich, vibrant area it is.

Then, of course, we found out that there is absolutely no restriction on seismic activity or on oil and gas exploration there. Our members aren't able to drop a single hook to catch a fish in that area, but a seismic vessel can go in and blast all day and all night long. If there is a finding of oil and gas there, then they can drill, drill, drill.

That's problematic. We've heard from our members for decades now on the difference they see in catchability once a seismic vessel goes through an area. I think about turbot in particular. Our members will tell you that the second a seismic vessel goes next to their vessel while they're fishing turbot, their catch rates drop off to pretty much nothing.

We fail to see how allowing that activity in the refuge is okay when our members can't even drop a hook, which is non-destructive and is not bottom-contact gear. It's completely prohibited.

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

Ms. Street, I'm new to this. I thought that there was supposed to be no oil and gas exploration in marine protected areas. However, you're saying that it is being done in your area of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the Newfoundland northeast slope.

How did you find out that the government wanted to ban fishing activities but allow oil and gas exploration?

[Dwan Street]

It really depends on the categorization of the area they're trying to close.

You have marine protected areas, marine refuges and national conservation marine areas, and each one has certain criteria. It really depends on the label they put on the area. The northeast marine slope is labelled as a refuge. That means no fishing, but it allows oil and gas. Generally, depending on the area, we have to go to government and say, “What are we looking at here?”

With the NMCA that our province just pulled out of—and we're very thankful that they did—we were barely consulted. We asked Parks Canada some questions, because, of course, we had not dealt with an NMCA. We asked what that would allow, what it would permit and what it would restrict. We were told that the effects on the fishing industry were going to be very minimal.

Then we realized that scallop-dragging is completely prohibited. That's a massive industry down there. It's small boat harvesters, but it's high-value. We were told, “Absolutely not.” Obviously we can't support this.

It really depends on the categorization of the area they're closing.

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

In this case, when did you discover that there could be oil and gas exploration in the area?

[Dwan Street]

As soon as we were consulted and we got to the table, we always asked what other industries were going to be affected. When it came to the east coast of our province, we always asked, “What's going to happen with oil and gas? Are they going to still be permitted to operate?”, and the answer was, “Absolutely, yes.”

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

What did the advisory committee say to you when you told it that banning all fishing but allowing exploration made no sense?

[Dwan Street]

They didn't really have answers for us, which was unfortunate.

I was around when that process was ongoing, and at that point I was actually in the industry liaison position at FFAW. We tried to push as hard as we could, but we were told, “No, the fishing industry is the one that's going to be shut out.”

Again, it always seems like it's the fishing industry that has the target on its back and has to bear the brunt of the sacrifice when parts of our ocean are closed.

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

Which area is the Newfoundland northeast slope marine protected area in? Has it already been set up?

[Dwan Street]

Yes, that area has been closed now for quite some time. I'm guessing it was probably around 2016 or 2017, if I recall correctly.

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

Ms. Street, what you're telling us is quite worrisome.

You mentioned your fear of economic losses. Are there already examples, in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the advent of marine protected areas has resulted in economic losses for the fishing industry?

[Dwan Street]

Absolutely. If I just take the example of the Funk Island Deep, we're seeing it not only economically but ecologically. It's completely thrown off the ecosystem.

That area was closed to protect northern cod, but now there's a box where northern cod are absolutely taking over and diminishing the snow crab resource in that area. Harvesters are losing out in zone 3K, where they were absolutely devastated last year with a 50% cut that was proposed for snow crab. We were able to get that down to 25%, but it was still a very significant loss. Harvesters are saying that the area is a problem, because the predation of northern cod right now on snow crab in that area is absolutely off the charts. That's what we're always concerned about.

There are a couple of other ones. Think about Eastport. That was a harvester-driven initiative. They're always keeping an eye on it, because it's there to protect lobster. There's always a concern that when lobsters are allowed to grow, the predation of the big ones on the little ones gets a little out of hand.

We're always monitoring those ecological impacts, and when there is an impact like that, it does affect a harvester's bottom line. It's always the owner-operator who will feel those effects first and foremost.

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

Thank you, Ms. Street.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

That completes our first round of questioning.

We're going to start the second round with Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I want to take us back to the reason for this study and quote the lines from the motion for the study:

...the committee undertake a study on how the Government of Canada has established marine and coastal protections since 2015 with particular focus on

(A) how these government initiatives have affected Canadians and coastal communities that depend on fisheries and marine resources;

(B) the government's methods for measuring whether conservation objectives and reasons for establishing protected areas are achieved;

(C) whether the government’s reasons and objectives for establishing marine and coastal protection are achieved....

I'll start off with Ms. Metaxas.

You mentioned spending time ahead of the process to make sure the consultation was done correctly. Could you explain, possibly, why this committee continually hears from harvesters and users of the resource that they have not been consulted, or, if they were consulted, that their input was either ignored or sometimes used against them? Why is that something we hear all the time at this committee?

[Anna Metaxas]

I have no experience with the consultation process anywhere other than in the Maritimes, obviously, and in my experience, those consultation processes did include the harvesters.

Speaking of NGOs, during the consultation process, it was my personal experience that a member of an NGO acted as a broker between the fishing industry and government to facilitate moving forward.

I guess the reason you hear it is that livelihoods are affected. I think there are also misperceptions about whether the industry is being listened to. Not doing what the industry asks for right off is not necessarily not listening to them, but what we absolutely must have—and I agree 100% with Ms. Street—is an assessment of how the industry's proposals will impact the conservation objective and how the conservation objective will impact the industry.

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

Now that you've mentioned that you agree with Ms. Street on something, I'll turn to Ms. Street.

Ms. Street, are all Canadians equally impacted by marine conservation protection?

[Dwan Street]

In our opinion, absolutely not. Again, it always seems like it is the fishing industry that has to give, give, give and receive nothing in return.

It's not only the FFAW that feels that way. I've spoken with some of my colleagues in the Maritimes, and I'm thinking about St. Anns Bank. They tried to work very hard to compromise and come up with an area that they felt could be closed and actually be beneficial to the ecosystem. They were told, “We will work with you and ensure the impacts are minimal.” When the area was finally closed, they lost about 30% of their most lucrative halibut fishing area. It's easy to see why the fishing industry becomes frustrated when we see oil and gas exploration being able to continue in these areas.

Even with this NMCA process that we just went through and that our province pulled out of, all we heard about was tourism. I understand what tourism can bring to an area. I'm from an area that was saved by tourism after the moratorium, but you can't sacrifice one industry over another. What tourists are going to bring for two or three months of the year and what you're going to take away from the livelihood of the citizens of your town is not a fair trade-off, and it always seems that it is the fish harvester—