Fisheries Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

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

Thank you. Our time is so limited here, unfortunately.

Ms. MacDonald, I believe it was you who said that we can't have growth of marine conservation areas beyond the ability to monitor and that we have insufficient processes. This gets back to one of the key pieces of the study motion, which was the government's methods of measuring whether conservation objectives are achieved.

Has the government put in place the goals and objectives that are needed so we can monitor whether those goals and objectives have been achieved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I hate to do this again. We're right at time.

If you could give a brief answer, that would be great.

[Kendra MacDonald]

I think what we have seen globally is that monitoring is not keeping pace, so how do we actually leverage consistent monitoring?

I would say, based on what I've heard in the testimony, that if we're not trusting the outcomes and recommendations and we're not able to get on the same page, then we are not sufficiently collecting the data to prove the value of the marine protected areas at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

Next we're going to Mr. Connors for five minutes.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

I'm going to be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Morrissey.

Ms. Street, are MPAs the best available tool to halt or reverse the losses of marine biodiversity? If not, from an industry perspective, what would you recommend?

[Dwan Street]

We don't feel that the evidence is there to support that. All we want to see is that closing the area actually achieves what it is supposed to achieve.

With current methods of monitoring and what we've experienced, we don't feel that closing any of these areas has really achieved what they said it was going to achieve. Of the ones that have—and you used Eastport as an example—Eastport is a good one, because Eastport was harvester-driven. Harvesters went to government and saw the potential gains from protecting their lobster resource, and they monitor it. They have an Eastport lobster MPA monitoring committee, and I sat on it a few years ago. They are constantly looking at the area and asking if what they're doing there is actually achieving what they want to achieve. They keep an eye on it.

However, the government is coming at us top-down and saying that they're going to close an area. We ask what it's going to achieve, and they tell us. We ask how they know this, but they can't give us answers. Years down the road, we ask, “What has this achieved?”, and they still don't have answers. That's the problem.

We feel that when an MPA or a closure is grassroots-led and the folks on the water and those who earn their livelihood from it see a potential benefit and are able to work with government, that's not a problem, and if it doesn't work, then let's reopen it. When it becomes problematic is when it's top-down and government is coming to us and saying, “Here is what we're going to close, and that's it. We'll consult with you and tick a box, but you really have no input here.”

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

In your experience, have you ever seen the boundaries of an MPA change after it was implemented, with further negative impacts on the industry?

[Dwan Street]

In my experience, I haven't. That's not to say it hasn't happened. Generally, when something is proposed, that's been what's implemented, and there hasn't been much adjustment there.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

On the consultation piece, how are fishers consulted currently? Do you think that process could be improved?

[Dwan Street]

It could, absolutely. I'll use the NMCA on the southwest coast as an example.

We found out about that. Then I kind of had to push our own way in there. The answers we were getting were very wishy-washy. We were trying to set up harvester committee meetings in the area. They would only offer us meetings, conveniently, when they knew harvesters were fishing. When we were finally able to get those meetings, they would hold meetings with other stakeholders on the same day, and the only messaging that would be communicated publicly would be the positive messaging out of the other meetings.

It was not a transparent process and not a trustworthy process, and something really didn't feel good.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

It's an interesting discussion.

At this moment, I would like to move the following motion. It was tabled last week. I believe all members should have it both official languages.

The motion reads:

That:

(a) the committee recognizes that,

(i) Atlantic mackerel is a key forage species and source of bait for many fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec,

(ii) mackerel fishing has been affected because DFO science indicates that the species is in the critical zone in Canadian waters,

(iii) harvesters have witnessed large schools of mackerel while on the water, and videos on social media have shown evidence of large mackerel schools over the last year, raising questions about the health of the stock,

(iv) the United States is planning to increase its quota for Atlantic Mackerel which could put new strain on Canada's fishery, ecosystem health, and stock rebuilding plans;

(b) pursuant to Standing Order 108(2),

(i) the committee conduct a six-meeting study on Canada's mackerel fishery, the current rebuilding plan for Atlantic mackerel, the science and analysis of mackerel in Canadian waters, the recent U.S. science on mackerel, and the potential impacts that increased U.S. fishing could have on Canada's mackerel stocks,

(ii) the committee hears from harvesters, as well as scientific experts,

(iii) the committee reports its findings and recommendations to the House; and

(c) pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request the government to table a comprehensive response to its report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrissey.

The motion has been moved. All members should have it in their inbox and also in the room in hard copy.

With that, if anybody would like to speak to it, I'll open it up to debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

Could I ask for a very short recess?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Yes. We'll briefly suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're back.

The motion has been moved. At this point, we're opening it up.

Is there any debate on the motion?

Go ahead, Monsieur Deschênes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would propose an amendment so that the status of herring can also be studied, in addition to the status of Atlantic mackerel.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Chair, we would agree with the addition of herring to the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

That addition has been put forward.

Is there any other debate on this amendment?

Are we all in agreement to amend the motion accordingly?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are back to the motion as amended.

Is there any other debate on the motion?

Is everybody in favour of the motion?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Looking at the time, we're going to move on.

We're going to move on to Mr. Deschênes.

After that, we're going to finish with Mr. Gunn.

Mr. Deschênes, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to go back to the discussion about the closure of the Newfoundland northeast slope.

Ms. Street, my understanding of the situation is that a refuge has been created and that oil and gas exploration currently under way is allowed. However, you and the entire Newfoundland fishing industry have been told that it's absolutely impossible to conduct any fishing activity in that area. Is that correct?

[Dwan Street]

Yes, it is.

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

What effect does the double standard have on your members?

[Dwan Street]

Well, it's a very lucrative area, especially for deepwater turbot fishing. We have a fleet of vessels that could go out there to gillnet turbot in those fathoms, but they're not able to fish there anymore.

While it's not a large part of our fleet, it was a very lucrative fishery at one point.

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

Social licence is a problem that often comes up in connection with marine protected areas. The idea is to ensure that everyone can be consulted to get their support so that compromises can be made.

When you see what's going on, how does it affect your members' perception of marine protected areas and the benefits of this policy?