Fisheries Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Dwan Street]

Our members just want to see results and we want to see evidence, but we don't feel that we've been presented with anything to show that our fish stocks or our marine ecosystem is benefiting from any of these areas. We haven't been provided with anything.

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

I understand that. However, how did people react to oil and gas exploration being allowed, despite the slope being closed, while all fishing activities are banned?

[Dwan Street]

It's not welcomed.

We always have concerns with oil and gas activity, and specifically seismic activity. DFO has done some work on snow crab in particular to see what the effects of seismic activity have been on the species and how it drives them into different areas and makes them migrate. It's really concerning, and there have always been concerns.

There were studies done in New Zealand and Australia on the effects on swim bladders of fish when it comes to seismic activity. We're always really concerned, because we know what seismic is. It's a massive blast, a noise, and there's no way it doesn't affect a fish.

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

What we understand is that the government chose the oil industry to the detriment of the fishing industry.

[Dwan Street]

Yes, that's our perception.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

We're going to finish with Mr. Gunn for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Street, when it comes to conservation, do you believe these mass area closures that have been proposed as part of the government's plan to implement the UN's 30 by 30 are based primarily in science, or are they being pushed by an unscientific or not scientifically proven ideology?

[Dwan Street]

We feel that those targets are political. There doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence that the closure is going to protect anything.

We were told that the NMCA was largely socio-economic, that it was going to bring tourism. These towns are not large towns. They don't have a whole lot of money being injected into their economies. I can see why some of the town councils, when they're told by Parks Canada that there's going to be $100 million injected into their communities, would jump on this, but when we asked them where that $100 million was going to come from, they had no answers. They were promising all these jobs, and we were saying, “Where are these jobs going to come from?” Again, they had no answers.

We don't feel that it's evidence-based at all, either economically or scientifically. We feel it's largely political.

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

Here in British Columbia, they've started the draft work to create giant marine protected areas as part of meeting the 30 by 30 target. Certain fisheries, like the prawn fishery, for example, face the very real possibility of losing up to 40% of their access to key fishing grounds.

If something like that happened to the fishermen you represent, what would it mean for them, their families and their ability to earn a living and put food on their tables, and to the coastal communities where they live?

[Dwan Street]

After speaking with some of my colleagues in B.C., I know how important prawn is out there, and I'd compare it to our snow crab fishery.

There are no other economic opportunities in a lot of these communities. When it comes to our coastal communities, it's the fishery that drives them. It's not uncommon for a harvester's spouse to be working in the processing plant.

We try to drive home to our politicians all the time that without these rural communities and without the fishing industry, urban centres like St. John's, Gander and Corner Brook are not going to flourish either, because that's where our folks are going to buy their vehicles and buy a lot of their groceries.

The fishery drives this province. If you remove any chunk of their income, then it's absolute devastation, because what's your alternative in a province where the fishery is the backbone?

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

For clarity, in British Columbia the process is well under way to meet these arbitrary and, as you put it, political targets. Are they doing something similar on the Atlantic coast? Have they started drafting out and mapping out these mass area closures to meet this 30 by 30 metric?

[Dwan Street]

They have.

As I mentioned earlier, we were told the Virgin Rocks area is on the table. That's a huge concern for us, because fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador go in cycles. Right now, we have a strong shellfish industry, but we also have a recovering groundfish industry. Northern cod right now has grown, and the TAC doubled this year, which has provided a massive economic opportunity to our members. Once the shellfish fishery starts to go down, which happens every seven to 10 years, we're going to rely more on northern cod.

The Virgin Rocks area was such a lucrative area for our members to fish with our larger vessels. If you take away that area and opportunity, that's going to be massive. We're definitely going to push back hard on this one. This just can't happen.

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

Really quickly, as one final question for you, does it frustrate you when you see these large, primarily foreign-funded environmental groups pushing for and advocating these mass area closures when they really don't have any skin in the game, as it were, since they're not going to be the ones who lose their jobs? They're not based in the coastal communities where the massive economic effects will be felt if the government goes ahead with trying to meet the UN targets.

[Dwan Street]

It does, absolutely. We are frustrated to no end.

I know one of the most frustrating parts for us was walking into a hearing advisory and all of a sudden looking at Oceana and Oceans North sitting at the table, when the year previous they were observers sitting in the back. We asked DFO when these groups were promoted to stakeholder status and what stake they hold in our industry. We were just told, “They're at the table now, and that's it.”

Knowing they have an equal voice with the folks who make their living on the water is deeply concerning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn.

That's going to complete our first panel today.

I want to thank all of the witnesses with us by video conference, and I thank the witnesses here in person as well. Your testimony is going to be very useful as we put together recommendations for government.

With that, we're going to briefly suspend while we welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call the meeting back to order.

I want to start by making a few comments for the benefit of the 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 those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: either floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'll give a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

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

We have Aaron Heidt, operations manager, Great Bear Sea marine protected area network. Also in person, we have Richard Paton, assistant executive director, marine and wildlife conservation, from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. By video conference, we have Francis Skeard, councillor, Qalipu First Nation.

We're going to start with witnesses' opening statements for five minutes or less, starting with Mr. Heidt.

[Aaron Heidt, Operations Manager, Great Bear Sea Marine Protected Area Network, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to present.

I'm currently the operations manager for the Great Bear Sea MPA network. I've worked in the northern shelf bioregion in marine management and planning for first nations and federal and provincial governments for 20 years. Over those 20 years, there have been many government policies, directives and commitments to advance ecosystem-based management, marine spatial planning and marine protected areas in B.C. The MPA network process builds on this existing work.

As a planner, one of my roles is to listen to the concerns of coastal community members and work with the partners to consider and address them. In that role, I have spent years working in communities on B.C.'s coast. I am here today to provide information and clarification to the committee regarding MPAs in the region, including the 10-year planning process that resulted in the network action plan.

In my opening remarks, I want to clarify five points about MPA planning in the region.

First, the network action plan was made in Canada, made in B.C. and made on the coast. The plan was co-developed and endorsed by 17 first nations and the governments of Canada and B.C., whose economies and cultures are deeply tied to this marine area. Extensive local knowledge from businesses, economic development corporations, and first nations commercial fishermen and harvesters was incorporated into the plan. The network was built from the ground up, balancing economic, community and conservation goals. The balanced planning approach is reflected by the endorsement of 17 first nations, many of which are strong commercial fishing communities.

Second, stakeholder engagement in the network planning process was extensive. It included over 60 sessions with stakeholders and involved broad representation across 15 ocean sectors, including commercial and recreational fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, coastal forestry and municipalities.

To be clear, fishing associations expressed concerns about the network. In response to this, significant changes were made between network scenarios. For example, it led to the removal of entire sites from the network, adjustments of boundaries and modification of conservation objectives. However, the partners also heard from many people, including owner-operators, who were extremely concerned about the health of our ocean and the state of the fisheries.

Over 70% of public respondents who live in the northern shelf bioregion support the proposed MPA network. The partners were repeatedly asked why they were moving so slowly to establish MPAs.

Third, there is still much work to do with stakeholders before MPAs are established. The network action plan is a blueprint that guides MPA establishment, similar to identifying areas of interest. All proposed MPA sites still need to go through a regulatory process to be established and still require management plans. These processes require stakeholder engagement and socio-economic assessments. All this work still needs to be done.

Fourth, a socio-economic overview was part of the network design process. It concluded that network implementation is expected to have many economic and social benefits for those living in the area and beyond. The socio-economic overview was published with the network action plan and is available on the network website.

The direct GDP value of marine sectors in the region was estimated at $1.3 billion. This includes $300 million from aquaculture, $251 million from marine transportation, $112 million from tourism and $87 million from commercial fishing. The overview estimated that 8% of commercial fisheries' landed value in the northern shelf bioregion could be affected by the network.

Finally, the partners have committed to long-term monitoring of economic, ecological, social and cultural network outcomes. To this end, a monitoring framework that outlines the collaborative process for developing and doing network monitoring, including stakeholder involvement, was published on the network website in 2024.

In conclusion, MPA planning in the Great Bear Sea northern shelf bioregion represents a decade of work with 17 first nations, 15 ocean sectors, and the provincial and federal governments to design a network that will help create social, economic, and ecological resilience and abundance for coastal communities. The regulatory processes required to establish each MPA will further ensure that stakeholders' voices are heard and reflected in MPA establishment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

With that, we will go to Mr. Paton for five minutes or less.

[Richard Paton, Assistant Executive Director, Marine and Wildlife Conservation, Qikiqtani Inuit Association]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, often referred to as QIA, I am pleased to respond to questions raised by this committee founded on the understanding of the Inuit-to-Crown relationship established by marine and coastal protection since 2015, and the impact felt by Inuit since.

The Qikiqtani region encompasses 10% of Canada's land mass. We are larger than the province of British Columbia. There are 20,000 people living in the Qikiqtani, of whom approximately 16,000 are Inuit. Traditional values, such as sharing, respect for elders and co-operation, remain central to our community life.

QIA, in working with the Government of Canada between late 2016 through to signing in 2019, sought to advance an Inuit-led approach to the management of Tallurutiup Imanga, or what we refer to as TI, the national marine conservation area surrounding the waters of Lancaster Sound. This included a shift in historical agreements, such as the one signed by Canada to open national parks in 1999, in that it added a layer for an all-Inuit committee to recommend changes across the NMCA and required Canada to work with Inuit on the development of an interim management plan.

Since 2022, QIA has been advancing a regional conservation approach embedded in opportunities for Inuit governance, stewardship and control over new protected and conserved areas through an indigenous protected and conserved areas lens. QIA, along with Canada and philanthropic donors, signed what we call the SINAA agreement in February 2025. While we are at the initial stages of developing the IPCA lens embedded within SINAA, the Government of Canada lacks support for the inclusion of an IPCA approach under federal legislation. Currently, it is the only viable pathway to facilitate impact and benefit agreements where indigenous—in our case, Inuit—partners are advancing Canada's commitments under the 30 by 30 target.

Qikiqtani Inuit have long sought to protect the rights of Inuit with respect to harvesting fisheries, both inshore, as advanced under the Nunavut agreement, and offshore, where waters adjacent to the Qikiqtani region are captured under article 15 of the Nunavut agreement and where government is meant to recognize the principles of adjacency and the economic dependence of communities on marine resources.

Of particular interest to this committee's questions raised with QIA is section 16.1.1 of the TI agreement—Lancaster Sound—which states as the primary objective, “To recognize that fishing and the harvest of wildlife is central to Inuit culture, and community well-being, and may contribute to a conservation economy.” That was the first iteration of conservation outcomes embedded in articles 8 and 9 of the Nunavut agreement that sought to understand and support collaboration between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Inuit around the potential for a sustainable commercial fishery embedded within conservation outcomes.

As we look to discuss the methods for measuring whether conservation objectives and reasons for establishing protected areas are achieved, we should first look to understand how the conservation economy is affirming Inuit jurisdiction and authority while building a broader Inuit economy. Movement towards greater representation of Inuit laws will consolidate and enhance the ability to be self-determining, creating concrete steps towards reconciliation between Inuit and Canada while broader policy thinking is still evolving around an economy that protects our environment. Qikiqtani Inuit represent less than 0.05% of the Canadian population, yet the Arctic, our homelands, represents more than 12% of the combined marine and terrestrial conservation targets that Canada has, which represents 40% of the 30 by 30 marine conservation target.

In closing, Inuit stewardship of lands and waters and a sustainable economy are vital to meeting conservation goals and maintaining ecosystem integrity throughout the Qikiqtani region. A successful conservation economy in our region can serve as a blueprint for conservation economies across the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Paton.

We're now going to conclude with opening remarks, for five minutes or less, by Francis Skeard.

[Francis Skeard, Councilor, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation]

Hello. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me here today.

My name is Francis Skeard, and I serve on the south coast fjords steering committee, representing the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. I'm here to share our nation's perspective on marine and coastal protection and on the proposed south coast fjords national marine conservation area.

Our nation has over 25,000 members across 67 communities, many of them rural and coastal. For the Mi'kmaq, the ocean is central to who we are. It has fed our families, supported our communities and carried our knowledge from one generation to the next. Our responsibilities to these waters come from long-standing Mi'kmaq teaching and lived experiences.

The Qalipu First Nation supports marine conservation, in keeping with our long stewardship of Newfoundland. Healthy oceans, habitats and fisheries are essential to our communities. Protecting ecosystems is not a barrier to prosperity; it is the foundation for it. When habitats are sustained, economies are stronger, more resilient and better able to support sustainable fisheries, tourism and other ocean-based industries.

The south coast fjords study area is ecologically rich and culturally significant. Hunting, fishing and gathering remain vital to the Mi'kmaq identity and way of life. Over 100 archaeological sites demonstrate generations of continuous use and stewardship. Interviews with elders and community members document long-standing practices, from fishing in La Poile and White Bear Bay to harvesting along the coast and inner rivers to travelling seasonally between communities. This is continuous use tied to identity, responsibility and cultural survival.

The national marine conservation areas model provides a framework whereby conservation and a sustainable economy can coexist. It brings together Mi'kmaq governments, harvesters, local leaders and community organizations to guide zoning, management and long-term decision-making. When communities help shape the rules from the start, ecosystems are protected while stable and sustainable local economies can thrive.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's decision to terminate the south coast fjords national marine conservation area feasibility study MOU is a missed opportunity for true partnership. Industry concerns are important, but bypassing meaningful engagement prevented our perspectives from being heard and prevented solutions from being fully considered. Instead of collaboration and reconciliation, we are met with colonial approaches.

Conservation must reflect the reality that people live and work here. The goal is not conservation versus industry. It must be a shared framework, guided by clear rules, informed planning and indigenous leadership. Rights holders are not just stakeholders; we are long-time stewards of these waters. When indigenous leadership is present at the decision-making table, conservation is stronger, more credible and more durable.

Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms our right to the “conservation and protection” of our lands and waters and calls on governments to work with us to achieve it. Conservation must be done in partnership with indigenous peoples, not without us.

Within the Qalipu First Nation, our people expect both environmental protection and economic opportunity. A well-designed national marine conservation area can bring in investment, research and monitoring programs, stewardship roles, tourism growth and new employment opportunities, particularly for rural economies or communities that often struggle to secure them. When indigenous voices shape decisions from the outset, conservation and sustainable development can move forward together.

In closing, healthy oceans and healthy communities are inseparable. We support marine protection that respects our rights, reflects local realities and enables sustainable development. With true partnership and shared responsibility, governments can protect marine ecosystems while supporting the livelihoods and cultures of the people who depend on them.

We remain committed to working with all parties to find a path forward that respects indigenous rights and the needs of coastal communities.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

That concludes our opening remarks. We'll go straight into the first six-minute round of questioning, starting with Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

A very important piece of this is how the government is establishing marine conservation areas and how it's monitoring those areas to see if they're actually achieving any results and if the reasons for establishing them are actually being achieved.

Mr. Heidt, from the title we've been provided in the notice of meeting, you're the operations manager of the Great Bear Sea marine protected area network. That would lead me to believe that the Great Bear Sea marine protected area network is established and in place. Is that correct?

[Aaron Heidt]

No. The network protected area is a plan. It's similar to developing an area of interest with an Oceans Act MPA.

It identifies areas that would have value for protection and what the conservation objectives for those areas would be. Each of those areas then needs to go through a regulatory process, just like an Oceans Act MPA would after an area of interest is identified or, similarly, a marine national wildlife area.

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

You're the operations manager for....