Evidence of meeting #23 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was area.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 23 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.
I would also like to acknowledge the 2026 Super Bowl champions, the Seattle Seahawks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
It was a great season played.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to continue its study on marine and coastal protections.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
Before we continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters. You'll also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.
Pursuant to our routine motions, I would like to advise committee members that all witnesses appearing virtually today have successfully conducted the required technical testing.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.
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. 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.
This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the raise hand function.
With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We have Professor Anna Metaxas from Dalhousie University, participating by video conference. In person today, we have Kendra MacDonald, chief executive officer of Canada's Ocean Supercluster. Participating by video conference, we have Dwan Street, president of Fish, Food and Allied Workers-Unifor.
We will start with the witnesses' opening statements of five minutes or less.
Professor Metaxas, we will start with you.
Anna Metaxas Killam Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Good morning or good afternoon, depending on where you are.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I wish to first thank you for this invitation to be a witness for your study on marine and coastal protections. I have been conducting research relating to the design of marine protected areas for more than 20 years.
Within the Canadian context and particularly in the Maritimes, my research group provided data that led to the closures of the eastern Jordan Basin and the Corsair and Georges canyons as sensitive benthic areas and now as OECMs. We have been providing scientific data, helping with monitoring and contributing to the ecological overviews for the Eastern Shore Islands AOI and the Fundian Channel-Browns Bank AOI.
I regularly provide science advice to DFO, including as a member of the advisory committees for the Endeavour hot vents marine protected area, the Eastern Shore Islands AOI, the Fundian Channel-Browns Bank AOI, as well as for the conservation network technical working group and the marine refuge coordination committee in the Maritimes specifically.
Internationally, I have participated in several meetings of the Convention on Biological Diversity, including three as a member of the Canadian delegation.
Lastly, I'm currently a coordinating lead author on the chapter on implementing targets two and three of the KMGBF for the spatial planning and connectivity assessment of IPBES, for which I was also nominated by Canada.
In all these activities, I act as an honest broker. I will be happy to share my experiences with these processes during the question period.
To answer your questions briefly, the Government of Canada has signed international agreements to halt biodiversity loss and has developed a national plan to conserve biodiversity across Canada's three oceans. The science is unequivocal. Protecting biodiversity can help maintain healthy oceans; support our coastlines against erosion; provide nurseries for ecologically and commercially important species, including birds; enhance carbon sequestration; and directly contribute to human health.
Biodiversity loss can result from many stressors, such as resource extraction, climate change, habitat loss through coastal development, pollution, eutrophication and fishing, among others. Importantly, the impacts of these stressors are not isolated but cumulative. For example, polluted ecosystems are more vulnerable to ocean warming, or when seagrass beds are lost, the carbon they store is released back into the atmosphere.
One tool to protect biodiversity is marine conservation areas, which play the same role as our national parks on land. Conservation objectives are typically specific to an MCA and are about the conservation of biodiversity, not about managing fisheries.
The process of implementing networks of Oceans Act MPAs in Canada started with the Endeavour hot vents back in 2003, followed by the Gully in 2004. At that time and into the early 2010s, the process took an average of a decade to complete, as with St. Anns Bank, for example. As of March 2025, approximately 15.5% of Canada's marine and coastal areas were designated in some form of conservation measure, which includes Oceans Act MPAs, national parks with marine components, bird sanctuaries, etc.
In terms of timing, of the 14 Oceans Act MPAs specifically, six were designated before 2015. For another five, the process toward designation was initiated before 2015. We still have quite a bit of work to do. Because this is very much an ongoing process, it is still too early to fully address your specific questions at this point.
I would like to reinforce the point of many previous witnesses. For the implementation of MCAs to be successful, broad and deep consultations with as many stakeholders and rights holders as possible are critical from the onset of the design process and for the duration of the lifetime of an MCA. I firmly believe that marine conservation can—in fact, should—coexist with other ocean uses, including fisheries, aquaculture, shipping and tourism, in the same way as our national parks coexist with agriculture and other activities.
However, spatial planning used to allocate space to different activities on land and in the sea, including for marine conservation, requires trade-offs by all actors. Thus, a lack of adequate consultation often leads to misinformation and a failure to reach a compromise that everybody can live with.
Importantly, long-standing mistrust of government that extends back decades and across governments of all colours can derail and has derailed the process, an example being the Eastern Shore Islands AOI, about which I will be happy to provide more detail. So can province-specific priorities that may not align with federal ones.
To understand whether targets are met and objectives are achieved takes time, possibly decades for some MCAs, and requires monitoring—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Professor, I'm afraid we're out of time. I'm going to ask you to please wrap up, and then we'll have to move on.
Killam Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I am.
It requires monitoring of environmental conditions, ecological states, socio-economic impacts, enforcement, and management effectiveness. The MCA system is still evolving in Canada, providing an opportunity to keep improving implementation. For example, the Banc-des-Américains MPA was just recognized as exemplary and was nominated for a global award as a blue park. This indicates that we can get it right. However, I believe that to get it right, we need to sustain the allocation of human and financial resources to the process to ensure extensive consultations, detailed socio-economic analysis and robust monitoring.
Thank you. I'll be happy to answer your specific questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Professor.
Next we're going to Kendra MacDonald for five minutes or less, please.
Kendra MacDonald Chief Executive Officer, Canada's Ocean Supercluster
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
I’m here today as the CEO of Canada’s Ocean Supercluster, a national innovation cluster that brings together almost 1,000 members across industry, indigenous partners, researchers and government in Canada to help translate complex ocean challenges into practical, deployable solutions. With over 150 projects in our portfolio, our role is not to set policy but to ensure that policy ambition is supported by real-world capability. From that perspective, I would like to focus on what is a Canadian but also global challenge.
As marine protected areas expand globally, including here in Canada, governments are encountering a common problem: Monitoring, enforcement and impact measurements have not kept pace with MPA designation. In many jurisdictions, MPAs are monitored through periodic surveys, infrequent patrols and datasets that sit in different institutions for different purposes. Even where intentions are strong, this makes it difficult to answer basic questions on an ongoing basis—for instance, what is happening in the water, how ecosystems are responding and how fisheries and other activities are interacting with protected areas over time.
This is a global challenge. In Canada, that challenge is shaped by a siloed reality. We do not have a national marine spatial plan—a dedicated plan on the use of our marine space—or a comprehensive blue economy strategy that provides a shared, integrated view of how conservation, fisheries, shipping, energy, coastal communities and other ocean uses are meant to coexist over time. As a result, decisions are often made by sector, by program or by region rather than within a unified spatial and economic context. This means that decisions on trade-offs are assessed case by case rather than being supported by a more cumulative view.
Canada does have significant data to support decision-making. We have fisheries science, compliance data, environmental monitoring, oceanographic information and indigenous and community-based observation, but this often exists in pockets, designed for specific purposes and not consistently integrated to show how decisions across marine activities interact. Without that integration, it becomes harder to demonstrate, for example, how protected areas support fisheries or climate resilience, or where adaptive changes are warranted as climate impacts change conditions over time.
This is where technology becomes essential. Technology allows monitoring to move from episodic observation to ongoing assessment. It allows enforcement to be informed by data rather than visibility alone. It also makes it possible to connect ecological, operational and economic information in ways that support evidence-based discussion.
Importantly, technology does not replace indigenous knowledge, local expertise or governance. It complements them by improving visibility, consistency and shared understanding. In many cases, it can reduce cost and increase collaboration.
The good news is that this capacity already exists in Canada. I get to see it every day in my role. For example, such Canadian-developed systems as AI-enabled fish-monitoring platforms are already being used to observe fish presence and movement continuously, using underwater sensors and analytics. These tools are directly applicable to sensitive habitats and protected areas, providing non-intrusive, real-time insights into what is happening below the surface.
The same goes for Canadian autonomous and acoustic monitoring platforms that observe marine activity and ecosystem conditions over large areas, supporting situational awareness, more targeted compliance and the kind of longitudinal data needed to evaluate outcomes over time. Advancements in environmental genomics technologies are addressing environmental stewardship and enhancing pathogen detection and mitigation efforts, information that could directly support decision-making around MPAs.
These technologies show that the constraint is not whether we can observe the ocean; it is whether we choose to integrate that information into decision-making. Better information does not eliminate disagreement, but it does support evidence-based discussion. I believe Canada can build on its strengths—strong science, capable institutions, innovative technology and deep indigenous knowledge—so that ocean decisions, in any policy direction, are grounded in credible, ongoing measurement that shows those affected by these decisions whether the desired outcomes are being achieved.
A healthy ocean is a more productive ocean. Conservation and economic objectives can be aligned and supported by more integrated data. Using this data to inform a national and cohesive marine spatial plan, we can connect MPA monitoring from coast to coast to coast while strengthening an already thriving ocean economy in Canada.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. MacDonald.
We will now conclude with opening remarks from Ms. Street.
You have five minutes or less.
Dwan Street President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Dwan Street. I am the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, FFAW-Unifor. We represent thousands of fish harvesters, processing workers and coastal residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, whose livelihoods and communities depend directly on continued access to marine resources and the long-term health of the ocean.
I appreciate the committee's focus on marine and coastal protections and the opportunity to speak to how these measures have affected fishing communities, how conservation success is being measured and whether the stated objectives are actually being achieved.
Let me be clear at the outset: FFAW members support conservation. No one has a greater stake in healthy oceans than fish harvesters. Our members work on the water every day, and they depend on sustainable ecosystems, not only for today's income but for the long-term survival of their communities. That said, our experience over the past decade shows that while the intent behind marine and coastal protections may be well-meaning, the way these measures have been implemented has had serious and lasting consequences for fishing-dependent communities, while raising legitimate questions about fairness, consistency and effectiveness.
Since 2015, the federal government has significantly expanded marine protected areas and marine refuges. For coastal communities, these decisions are not abstract. They directly determine whether people can continue to make a living from the sea. When a fishing area is closed, the impact is immediate. More importantly, it is often permanent. Lost access represents a direct economic loss that extends across generations.
Fishing enterprises are built around access to specific grounds. Once that access is removed, it is rarely restored. Over time, closures reduce the viability of owner-operator enterprises and limit opportunities for young people to enter the fishery. They weaken processing capacity and, moreover, contribute to population decline in coastal communities. These impacts are compounded by the cumulative effect of multiple closures layered on top of one another, often without a full accounting of long-term socio-economic consequences. While conservation benefits are frequently framed at a national or global level, the costs are borne locally by fishing-dependent communities with few alternative economic options.
The FFAW is also deeply concerned about clear imbalances in how different ocean users are treated within marine refuges established in the name of conservation. In several cases, fishing activity is categorically prohibited, even where it may pose little to no risk for conservation objectives. For example, in areas such as the Funk Island Deep, fishing methods like longline fishing, which have minimal contact with the seabed, are not permitted. At the same time, in other areas, including the northeast marine slope refuge, oil and gas exploration and development activities are allowed to proceed.
What is particularly troubling is the process applied to these decisions. Oil and gas proponents are given the opportunity to demonstrate, through various tests and monitoring, that their activities will not cause significant harm to conservation. Fisheries are not given the opportunity. Fishing activity is simply excluded outright, without an equivalent evidence-based assessment or a chance to demonstrate compatibility with conservation goals. From the perspective of fish harvesters, this represents a clear double standard. Industrial activities are permitted subject to conditions, while fishing—a renewable, highly regulated activity that sustains coastal communities—is shut out entirely.
This imbalance is compounded by the lack of transparency around how the government measures whether conservation objectives are being achieved once protected areas are established. Monitoring and evaluation are inconsistent, long-term outcomes are often unclear, and results are not always publicly reported. Fishing activity is heavily monitored, controlled and enforced. It is reasonable to expect the same level of rigour and accountability in demonstrating that marine refuges and protected areas are delivering the environmental benefits that justified their creation.
Designation alone does not guarantee conservation success. If the objectives are biodiversity, protection, habitat conservation or stock recovery, those outcomes must be clearly demonstrated. Where evidence shows that objectives are not being met, management measures must be reviewed and adapted. Fish harvester knowledge must be central to that process. Our members possess generations of experience and understanding of marine ecosystems. That knowledge should not end at the designation stage. It must be part of ongoing monitoring, evaluation and decision-making.
In closing, marine and coastal protections must be effective, evidence-based and fair. When fishing access is removed, economic loss to coastal communities is often permanent and can last for generations. Canadians deserve clear evidence that such sacrifices are producing real environmental benefits. The FFAW believes conservation and sustainable fisheries are inseparable goals. Achieving both requires transparency, accountability, adaptive management and equal treatment of all ocean users.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much. That concludes our opening remarks.
We're going straight into the first round of questioning, starting with Mr. Small for six minutes.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to our witnesses today.
My first question is for Ms. Street. Did the government need to sign on to the United Nations' 30 by 30 marine protected areas scheme to protect Canadian waters, when more than a dozen acts of Parliament are in place to protect fish stocks and our ocean ecosystems? Was agreeing to 30 by 30 necessary, do you feel?
President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
We don't feel that it was necessary. We feel it was a very extreme target. Unfortunately, it has been the fishing industry that's borne the brunt of what we've seen. Our goalposts are constantly moving. We heard it was 10; then we heard 15. Then it was 20, and then it was 30. Our question is, when does it stop?
We don't feel the fishing industry is being treated fairly in this. Had we all gotten to the table.... There are pristine areas, say, in the Arctic, in northern Labrador—everybody was willing to work together—that could help meet those targets and not affect their industry negatively, but unfortunately, what we're seeing is just complete disrespect for our industry.
Just a little while ago, we had the Virgin Rocks come across our desk as a potential closure. Our members are up in arms. It's one of the most lucrative historical fishing grounds when it comes to northern cod, which, of course, is on the rebound and is becoming much more important to our members as a species that they will harvest.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
I want to stop you right there, Ms. Street.
When did you find out about the Virgin Rocks marine protected area? Would you have been one of the first groups approached for your support in the developing of that, since you're user who depends on that area so much?
President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
We're not quite sure where we were in that hierarchy of folks who were informed, but I do remember our industry liaison, Katie Power, who deals with closed areas on the forefront, coming to me late fall last year and saying she thought this was going to be a major issue. We were absolutely floored when we saw that the Virgin Rocks were even in consideration.
February 9th, 2026 / 11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
I heard you mention pristine areas that could be protected. When we look at land-based protected areas, historically, we'd be looking at areas where we had old-growth forests and areas that were never touched, that were pristine. Do we have areas in the ocean that are pristine and rarely fished that you think could be a priority to be protected, over areas that have been, as some of these areas have been, bottom-trawled such that the bottom was like a parking lot?
President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
We obviously speak to our indigenous counterparts on a regular basis as well, and I know there were some areas in northern Labrador that were under consideration, mostly areas that were never fished, whether by our members or indigenous groups. It just seems like those fell by the wayside. Unfortunately, it seems like the target is always on the back of the fishing industry.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Thank you.
Ms. MacDonald, how do you feel about the need for our federal government to sign on to the United Nations' 30 by 30 marine protected areas protocol, when our oceans are protected by more than a dozen acts of Parliament?
Chief Executive Officer, Canada's Ocean Supercluster
Our role is not to comment on policy. Certainly, I've been part of a number of discussions, and there is a global focus on protection, but the conversation globally, and the challenge, is that we can't have designations outpacing our ability to monitor, enforce and understand impacts.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Along the lines of what Ms. Street and I were just speaking about, when we look at land-based protected areas and national parks, historically, when we began with national parks, it was pristine areas, old-growth forests and areas never touched by any type of developing or resource harvesting that were first to be protected. Do you think that's the way that 30 by 30 could proceed in protecting pristine areas that are not touched already?
Chief Executive Officer, Canada's Ocean Supercluster
That would not be my area of expertise.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Okay, thank you.
Ms. Street, oftentimes, Canadian ENGOs are pushing the narrative for establishing new protected areas. They're often funded by American foundations to help sway public opinion in favour of creating protected areas. How do you feel about that?
President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers - Unifor
We've been very public and very clear on our position when it comes to ENGOs. We're deeply troubled that the Canadian government has them at the table as stakeholders in fishery management decisions when clearly the only stake they hold is padding their own pockets and their own coffers for their donors.
I want to stress again that FFAW members believe in conservation. There are no greater stewards of the resource than fish harvesters. It's their livelihood. It's going to be their livelihood for generations.
It's very easy for somebody in an office who's probably never seen salt water to weigh in and try to shut down somebody else's livelihood when it really doesn't affect them. It's been troubling since the days of their advocacy against the seal hunt. We've seen the devastation that's caused. Now we see them trying to shut down fisheries and shut down areas with absolutely nothing that demonstrates it's going to achieve any of their goals.
We really do question their motives. As you said, Mr. Small, they're catering to American donors, millionaires, who have no stake in the fishing industry. It is troubling. We're seeing their involvement grow and it's something we are going to continue to push back on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Small.
Next we're going to Mr. Klassen for six minutes.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you very much, and thank you to all the witnesses for bringing all your information forward.
As we have said over and over again in this committee, and as Ms. Street said, conservation and a sustainable fishing industry are doable, and that's obviously the goal for all of us here. We must ensure that we protect the waters and that we protect the harvesters' industry and the communities.
Ms. Street, you were mentioning that the ENGOs were not engaging, or were not involved in being on the water. I'm wondering how we can ensure that the ENGOs and the harvesters all bring adequate and reliable information to the table.