Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Let's take the example of snow crab fishing in zone 12 in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. If I'm not mistaken, marine conservation areas are planned for this zone if discussions progress well and everyone can agree. Have you done a socio-economic impact assessment related to snow crab fishing in zone 12?

[Brett Gilchrist, Director, National Programs, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes, engaging the fishing industry is the top priority, certainly for fisheries management in working with our Government of Canada colleagues, to understand the impact of any potential new protected areas, but also in trying to get a sense from industry about the potential opportunities, where that is possible, to continue fishing. That could involve finding boundaries that are more acceptable to the industry and areas that they consider prime fishing grounds, but it could also be about new fishing gear technology—for example, whalesafe gear for snow crab and fish harvesters in areas that are important to them.

The first step of the economic analysis is to engage fish harvesters and to get their opinions and positions about areas that are critically important to them.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Let's say there's a marine conservation area in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and, unfortunately, no one can fish there anymore for some reason, such as the presence of corals. If there is an economic impact on fishers, that is to say a loss of income, has your department planned any compensation, programs or funding to help these individuals?

We do this for other industries, such as the automotive and steel industries. Does your department plan to do the same thing if there is a loss of income in this sector?

[Brett Gilchrist]

I'm not aware of compensation, but again, in most cases—for example, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence—

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'm not asking whether you're aware. If there's no fishing in a particular zone, did you think about making sure there's money in place to help those fishers?

[Brett Gilchrist]

When we look at a protected area possibility, fisheries management, in the role we play, determines whether a new protected area is going to have an impact economically on fish harvesters. We determine whether an appropriate area is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the southern gulf or in an area that is more appealing to harvesters.

We do consider potential implications and costs to the industry, and we consider options.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I think fishers are aware that marine conservation areas can be beneficial. On the other hand, they can also be detrimental to them since they can't fish there. They still have concerns. Most of them told us about the consultation process. As I said earlier, when they come to the meetings, they are shown maps on which an area has already been designated.

Why don't you do the opposite? Instead of meeting with them at public advisory committee meetings, why don't you meet with them beforehand to tell them what you're proposing? I think you're creating a lot more uncertainty in the industry the way you're doing things now than if you did things a little differently.

For future meetings or consultations, are you able to tell us whether you're going to implement this process, so that there can be better coordination with the various sectors?

[Kathy Graham]

If I may, I will answer the question.

I would say that, based on the feedback we're getting, the process is clearly problematic for fishers. We definitely want to take a step back and ask ourselves how we can do things differently.

Certainly, when we present a map with ideas, the goal is to have the highest level of transparency. We've been criticized in the past for doing things behind closed doors. Our goal is really to put forward ideas to start the conversation, get feedback and understand their perspective on what works and what doesn't work.

What we've managed to do over the years with the conservation areas we currently have is that most of the boundaries end up changing based on the feedback and information we gather from fishers' expertise and knowledge. We show the maps to start the conversation and achieve the highest level of transparency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Simard, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a little surprised by Mr. Cormier's questions about compensation for fishers and the connection he made with the automotive sector. It's still a government decision. I hope that, if standards were ever put in place, the government would agree to provide compensation for fishers. It's quite surprising to see someone from the government questioning public servants as if he thought they had the power to implement compensation measures.

I say this without malice, Mr. Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We don't always agree.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As you say, we won't always agree.

Witnesses, I'm going to take you in a different direction.

You may be aware that the government has an extensive trade corridor strategy. Trade corridors often involve the use of waterways. I'm speaking for my region, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, where there have been investments in infrastructure at the Port of Saguenay. In fact, we thanked the government for its investments.

Is your department consulted on the potential impacts and mitigation of increased shipping?

[Kathy Graham]

We work very closely with our partners at Transport Canada, who have a mandate to manage marine transportation. When it comes to defining or considering marine protected areas, they are definitely part of the conversations, and we have an opportunity to work together to understand the dynamics or the relationship between the different objectives.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm not saying this naively. We had discussions about this not too long ago. I know that in 2024, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans put in place a marine drone program to determine right whale populations. Mitigation measures could be put in place as a result, since boats could slow down their speed or make sure no collisions occurred.

I know that this is creating concerns among the people of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean about the protection of the ecosystem in the Saguenay estuary, particularly in terms of the well-known issue of beluga whales.

We found it useful to implement the same type of project. I don't remember the name of the company you were dealing with. I believe it was Whale Seeker. We wondered whether it was possible to develop the same type of project to protect marine wildlife not only in the Saguenay estuary, but also in the St. Lawrence, since we know that belugas are currently migrating because of global warming.

Is that something you're thinking about?

[Kathy Graham]

Some protected areas have been established, and one of the objectives is to help protect whales.

My colleague Mr. Gilchrist has more knowledge than I do on the specific issue of whales.

[Brett Gilchrist]

Thank you for the question. It's a really important one, because it's an example of where sometimes technology and the monitoring of species like whales and their distribution can allow us to make more informed decisions and engage fish harvesters to minimize the impact of protection measures on fish harvesters. That's certainly something that your region...and belugas and other species, including endangered species like North Atlantic right whales, are deeply connected. It's about management measures that allow harvesters to continue fishing while also implementing conservation steps. That kind of research, piloting and monitoring can lead to those solutions, for sure.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand that mitigation measures must be found to preserve fishing activities, and I fully agree with that.

Given that the use of trade corridors also has an impact on marine wildlife, and that there may be an increase in marine traffic if we develop new markets with Europe, I wonder if that was something you were thinking about. My region in particular comes to mind, but I'm sure that's the case elsewhere. It's the same thing for the Port of Québec, which is trying to change its mandate to handle more containers.

We wonder how mitigation measures can be put in place to further develop the social licence of the trade corridor project. Are you involved in discussions with the government? Do you have any measures different from those I mentioned to you, the ones concerning marine drones? Are there measures to further develop the social licence for this type of project?

[Kathy Graham]

I know that my colleague from Parks Canada would like to talk about the project in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. In addition, if one of the issues of interest is noise, our colleagues could provide you with more detailed information on the noise abatement strategy.

Mr. Millar, do you want to add anything?

[David Millar]

I would just like to say something about what you mentioned, Mr. Simard. As you know, we have the Saguenay—Saint‑Laurent marine park, whose purpose is to protect beluga whales and other marine mammals.

We're working with the shipping industry, not to stop shipping, because it's really important for the economy and for Canadians, but to set up mitigation measures, as you said. For example, reducing speeds in areas that are major habitats for beluga whales also significantly reduces the risk of collision. That's one example of what we're doing with industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

That completes the first round of questions.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Graham, during our previous discussion at committee on these marine planning areas or underwater parks, you stated that DFO undertakes socio-economic analysis only after areas are established or chosen, leading to the potential of mass closures of fishing grounds without even studying how many jobs are going to be lost, how much tax revenue will be lost to the government and the impacts on Canada's food security.

Why doesn't the department conduct the socio-economic analysis before engaging in closing fishing grounds that could collapse an entire industry?

[Kathy Graham]

As a point of clarification, the socio-economic analysis is undertaken at the moment we have a better understanding of conservation objectives and what specific measures would be needed to actually achieve those conservation objectives. It happens before a site is established.

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

Ms. Graham, you told me, “once we understand what conservation measures will be put in place, we will do that socio-economic analysis”. You also told me that no socio-economic analysis has been done, yet this process has been going on for seven or eight years now.

Are you now saying that the department will be doing a socio-economic analysis before announcing which areas will be closed? Were you mistaken before, or has the department's approach changed?

[Kathy Graham]

No. To clarify again, with respect to the northern shelf bioregion, what has been tabled is a plan. In that plan, there aren't fully defined conservation objectives and/or measures that have been agreed to—

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

Are you talking about draft scenario two? That does have management measures, which were put out from that industry. It was able to estimate a huge loss of access to a variety of fisheries, including geoduck, prawn and rockfish. Are we no longer going off that at all? The minister in 2023 practically endorsed it. All the fishermen see it. They're now wondering if this is happening or not.

I would welcome the opportunity for you to dismiss this outright and say that, no, there is no.... Can you say that after seven years? Can you guarantee that fishermen will not be losing double-digit percentage access to these fisheries, for example, up the British Columbia central coast? Can you guarantee that, or is it still a possibility?