Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

[Kathy Graham]

The northern shelf bioregion plan, the plan you've made reference to, is a concept that was put forward. In terms of the establishment process, once that process begins.... It has not as of yet, given that the government was negotiating the project financing for permanence with the same 17 first nations that endorsed the northern shelf bioregion plan, and as a result of that—

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

Then we should just dismiss the draft proposal altogether, scenario two, because that's what industry.... Can you imagine being a fisherman? DFO puts out a plan. You look at the plan. You're going to lose 46% access to prawn, 36% access to geoduck and 34% access to rockfish on B.C.'s central coast.

You have yet to tell members of Parliament, and you have yet to tell fishermen. Is that plan now out the window and we're starting from scratch, or is that still the basis for what fishermen can expect?

[Kathy Graham]

That still remains the basis that fishermen can expect. In terms of clarifying—

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

Okay, so that is significantly closing.

[Kathy Graham]

In terms of clarifying, advancing marine protected areas does not mean that all fishing areas will be closed.

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

No, it does not mean all, but it means a lot of fishermen—

[Kathy Graham]

The objective is—

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

Excuse me, Ms. Graham, but it's my time.

This plan has been put out with management measures. The fishermen have looked at it and studied it, and they've put forward what it is going to mean for them. You're sitting there telling me that DFO might not follow the plan exactly. Well, that's not good enough. If you're not going to follow the plan, then you need to tell fishermen what the plan is. That was four years ago, and they're sitting with all of this uncertainty. You're destroying their business; no one wants to go into it. You need to provide some certainty for these people.

Mr. Millar, the last time we spoke, you said that marine planning areas, or MPAs, are “not closed areas for fishing”, yet DFO has created and closed many areas over the years, including areas of the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation area around Haida Gwaii. For the northern shelf bioregion, as I said, the department produced the draft report, scenario two—everyone can see it—which included mass closures up and down B.C.'s coast. As an example, there will be up to a 46% loss of access to prawn on the central coast.

Will the northern shelf bioregion marine planning area or underwater park strategy, whatever you want to call it, look like scenario two, or will it match up with your previous statement that these areas will not be closed for fishing? It has to be one or the other.

[David Millar]

I would stand by the statement I made last time that NMCAs are not intended to be closed areas for fishing. That's not to say there are no measures within them pertaining to fisheries. Gwaii Haanas is a great example. The majority of the area is still open for a variety of fisheries. There are areas within it, within the management plan, where fishing has been limited in close consultation with the industry. The industry was involved in the planning process for the zoning and management plan from day one and, in fact, came out publicly in support of that management planning process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you much, Mr. Gunn.

Next we are going Mr. Cormier for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to follow up on what my colleague Mr. Simard was talking about.

I think he clearly lacks knowledge about how the federal government operates. Even my colleague Mr. Gunn just asked the officials if they had thought about all the plans and all the socio-economic impacts.

As a government, it's our responsibility to anticipate socio-economic impacts, but it's also theirs. It is also their responsibility to make recommendations to the government. At the end of the day, that's how a government works. We make decisions. His colleague who is replacing him is not shy about asking the federal government for more funding. Each time, his colleague votes against it, as I'm sure does Mr. Simard.

I would now like to come back to how the marine protected areas work. My colleague Mr. Gunn just talked about the fear that fishers have. I want us to pay close attention to that. Their fear is that they will no longer be able to fish inside marine protected areas. Some of you are saying that they will be able to, while others are saying that they won't.

How are you going to allay the fears of the fisheries sector, for example? What more can you do right now to tell them that consultations are currently under way and that areas are being proposed for various reasons, such as protecting this coral or that ecosystem? There are advantages and disadvantages, but what more can you do right now? What can you tell our committee to allay their fears? If they lose revenue at some point, how can we assure them that you, as public servants, are thinking about these things during socio-economic impact studies, but that the government is also thinking about them? How can you allay their fear? All the members, fishers and associations that have come here have expressed the same concerns.

[Kathy Graham]

We have already started asking fisheries sector representatives for comments to get advice on how we can organize ourselves differently to ensure a good working relationship. We also need to adopt an approach that will reassure them that the advice and information they provide to us are crucial. That will help us designate and put in place protected areas that make sense, in a way that achieves conservation objectives while minimizing the impact.

The role of the representatives is really essential to ensure that the ultimate goal is achieved, which is to put in place protected areas that reflect conservation objectives while having the least possible impact. That can't be done if they're not there to work with us. On our end, we thought we had done a good job, but after listening to the testimony and hearing the comments—

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

Did you listen to their testimony? It should be clear to you that this is not something that the committee made up. Fishers are really worried. As you just said, you have a huge job ahead of you to try to regain their trust.

I'm going to move on to you, Mr. Gilchrist.

You spoke about the new gear in, for example, zone 12. I think we can still talk about it. I think it's within the scope of what we're doing right now—the new whalesafe fishing gear strategy you just unveiled a couple of weeks ago.

There's even some concern from fishers that what we're trying to do here is have crab fisheries without any traditional traps, even when the whales are not present. Is that the case?

[Brett Gilchrist]

No.

This is a perfect example of how I believe we should engage—and we have engaged—fish harvesters from the start before making decisions. I don't think it's about putting a map on the table and saying what area we want to protect. It's about identifying the species, ecosystem features and objectives and asking how we work around them. You put these ecosystem features or species—whether it's right whales, a coral bed or a glass sponge reef—in front of the fishing industry and fish harvesters, both indigenous and non-indigenous harvesters, and ask, “Is there a way we can protect these critical elements and work around them that minimizes the impact on your fishery?”

Before making a decision on what a final product would look like, you have repeated rounds of engagement. For example, for the whalesafe fishing gear strategy, I recall going to communities. I remember sitting over at the fire hall and talking to harvesters about what they thought about that strategy. Some of them said it wouldn't work for their fishery. That's important because we can turn around and say, “Okay, this tool is not going to work for that fishery. Is there an alternative tool that will allow them to fish and protect that species?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to clarify my thinking for the benefit of Mr. Cormier. I don't want to be at odds with him. I'm a well-meaning person. I simply want to tell him that it would not occur to me to criticize an official from Natural Resources Canada because the government is not offering compensation to forestry industry workers for a situation that poses a problem today. Similarly, I don't think it's up to an official from the Department of Industry to comment on the compensation given to auto sector workers. That is the role of government. In all modesty, I wanted to qualify my remarks.

Let's get back on topic. I really enjoy a political debate, but I'm now going to come back to things that are relevant to the witnesses.

Not long ago, my colleague Alexis Deschênes and I met with fishers from the Îles de la Madeleine. They told us that it was hard to align your scientific data with the data they collect on the ground. I want us to listen to science, but there was often a considerable gap between your interpretation of the scientific data and the findings reported by the people on the ground.

Is there a mechanism in place to align the knowledge of fishers, meaning the findings made on the ground about fish stocks or the policies that affect the fishery, and the scientific knowledge that enables you to make decisions? Is there any kind of alignment or arbitration on that?

[Kathy Graham]

I'll ask my colleague Mr. Gilchrist and my colleague from Parks Canada to answer the question about the Îles de la Madeleine.

[Brett Gilchrist]

It's definitely about listening to harvesters and the feedback they have and working with them and DFO's ecosystems and oceans science colleagues to better understand how the science data, the feedback and the experience of harvesters connect, and if they don't connect, trying to find a way forward to try to identify a solution on that.

The experience of harvesters doesn't always align with the modelling exercises. That's a really important point, because sometimes modelling does get it wrong, so you return to the table, talk to harvesters and update the model. That's certainly happened in the development of some of the protected areas in the past, such as marine refuges, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Simard.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses from all three departments for being here.

I'll start with Ms. Graham.

On November 25 of last year, you told this committee, “Fishing activities occur in all of our marine protected areas.” Those were your words in testimony. Do you recall that?

[Kathy Graham]

Yes.

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

On January 28 of this year, I shared that statement with a B.C. harvester involved in the DFO marine protection processes, and he stated that there are, in fact, MPA initiatives that are no-take zones.

Ms. Graham, when you stated that fishing activities occur in all MPAs, did you mean that all MPAs include at least one zone where fishing occurs, or what did you mean?

[Kathy Graham]

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify.

With respect to the 14 marine protected areas, we have four where, in fact, fishing is prohibited. There is the Laurentian Channel; Eastport, which we talked about; the Bowie seamount; and Tuvaijuittuq.

For Tuvaijuittuq, no fishing activity happens there. My understanding for Laurentian Channel is that—

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

Then your statement that fishing activities occur in all of our marine protected areas was incorrect.

[Kathy Graham]

Yes.